Skip to main content

Full text of "Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation"

See other formats


Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/interpretingsecrOOnati 



Technical Preservation Services 
Preservation Assistance Division 
National Park Service 
U.S. Department of the Interior 
Washington. DC 



Interpreting^ 



the~Secreta r v of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 




Volume 



UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 

DEC 1 1388 

DEPOSITORY 



Cover illustration: Yokohama Specie Bank (1908-10), Honolulu, Hawaii. Rehabilitated 
under the historic preservation tax incentives program. Drawing by Michel A. Van 
Ackere for the Historic American Buildings Survey. 1987. 



INTRODUCTION 



"Interpreting the Standards" ("ITS") bulletins were initiated in 1980 by the Preservation 
Assistance Division to explain rehabilitation project decisions made by the National Park 
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, in its administration of the historic 
preservation tax incentives program. Issued at intervals to program administrators in 
National Park Service regional offices and State historic preservation offices, the first 
43 "ITS" bulletins were collected in 1982. Volume II of "Interpreting the Standards" 
appeared in 1985, and included another 32 bulletins. The present volume adds another 32 
bulletins, bringing the total to 107. 

Designed primarily for State and Federal program administrators, these bulletins have 
proved useful to architects, developers, historians, and others involved in the 
rehabilitation of historic buildings. Consequently, with this volume, "ITS" bulletins are 
offered for sale to the general public for the first time. 

Decisions presented in these bulletins are specific to the circumstances of the 
rehabilitations involved. They do not accumulate as precedent in the legal sense. The 
procedures for obtaining certifications of rehabilitation are explained in Title 36 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 67. These regulations control in the event of any 
inconsistency with these bulletins. 

The following ten Standards for Rehabilitation are used by the Secretary of the Interior 
to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a "certified rehabilitation" pursuant 
to relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code. The Standards comprise the sole 
regulatory basis for determining whether or not a rehabilitation is consistent with the 
historic character of the structure and where applicable the district in which it is 
located. (The Standards for Rehabilitation, first published in 1977, are undergoing 
revision as this volume goes to press. The revised text, however, will differ in relatively 
minor aspects only from the Standards that governed review of the projects discussed in 
this volume. These Standards are given below.) 

1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for 
a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or 
site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended 
purpose. 

2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, 
structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal 
or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features 
should be avoided when possible. 

3. All buildings, structures, and site shall be recognized as products of 
their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek 
to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 

4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are 
evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site 
and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in 
their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 






5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship 
which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with 
sensitivity. 

6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than 
replaced, wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the 
new material should match the material being replaced in composition, 
design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement 
of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications 
of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence 
rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different 
architectural elements from other buildings or structures. 

7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the 
gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that 
will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 

8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve 
archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 

9. Contemporary design for alteraions and additions to existing properties 
shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not 
destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such 
design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of 
the property, neighborhood or environment. 

10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be 
done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be 
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure 
would be unimpaired. 

Bulletins appear in order of issuance. The number assigned to each is composed of the 
fiscal year in which the bulletin appeared and an overall cumulative number. The index 
at the end of this volume references all bulletins in the series. (Unfortunately Volumes 1 
and 2 are no longer in print.) 

This material is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. However, 
normal procedures for credit to the authors and the National Park Service are 
appreciated. Additional information and guidance on technical preservation and 
rehabilitation techniques for historic buildings may be found in the Preservation Briefs, 
Technical Reports and other publications developed by the Preservation Assistance 
Division. For a complete list of titles including prices and GPO stock numbers, write: 
Preservation Assistance Division (424), National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, 
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. 



echnical Preservation Services 
reservation Assistance Division 
ational Park Service 
S Department of the Interior 
/ashmgton, DC. 



Interpreting, 



tne~Secreta r y of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 86-076 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 

Subject: ASSESSING "PROBLEM USE" HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Issue: While some historic buildings reveal their character immediately through a 
particular style, through the use of rich materials such as marble and bronze, or 
through a repetition of ornamental features and decorative detailing, many others do 
not. The character of utilitarian structures, such as warehouses and jails, may be 
conveyed through the very simplicity of their form and materials, or through features 
associated with the historic use of the building. 

The contemporary uses some utilitarian structures can serve while preserving their 
historic character are limited. Historic utilitarian structures have been rehabilitated 
within the framework of the Secretary's Standards, but the potential limitations for 
adaptive re-use should be recognized early in project planning. It is important to be 
aware of the functions they have served over time in order to meet the Standards. As 
a result of an incomplete assessment of the significance of a structure's historic 
function to its character, an owner may make changes that compromise its identity. 

Application: A jail built in 1887 was proposed for rehabilitation into residential 
apartments. Located in a historic district, the structure consisted of a warden's house 
and a cell block (see illus. 1). The exterior of the four-story, 124' x kk' cell block 
contrasted sharply with the warden's residence, a three-story, late Victorian structure 
topped by an elongated arched dome that had long been a landmark in the historic 
district. The stark interior of the cell block reflected the strictly utilitarian 
character of the structure. The cells, 5' x 8', were separated by 18" load-bearing 
masonry walls (see illus. 2 and 3). The internal structural system was therefore 
independent of the exterior walls. To accommodate the insertion of 32 apartments, 
plans called for the nearly total demolition of the historic floor plan (see illus. k). 

In denying the project certification, the regional office noted that the design proposal 
would remove: 

all signs of the historic plan and structural system along with all 
interior historic fabric, i.e., stairs, balustrade and newel posts, 
lattice strap cell doors and riveted steel jambs, etc. 
Consequently, this proposal would erase all evidence of the 
essential form, integrity and sole intent of the building's historic 
appearance and purpose. 

In his appeal, the owner stressed the immense difficulties encountered in converting the 
building into housing. He stated that only by removing all of the interior fabric could the 
conversion be accomplished. In the meeting, he also noted that much of this work had 
already been undertaken, including the removal of the roof (made necessary by the 
decision to remove the load-bearing cell walls). At the time of the appeal meeting, 
therefore, the cell block stood roofless with only its perimeter walls in place. 



86-076 

The Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the determination of the regional office that the 
rehabilitation destroyed all traces of the jail's character as a jail—and thus in large part 
its very history. The historic function of the cell block was very specific. "Its sole 
purpose," he wrote, "was embodied in the interior arrangement of the structure." This 
arrangement "was more than a mere adjunct to the historic resource. It was the most 
essential component of it. The interior arrangement largely determined the fundamental 
historic character of this building... and it had survived into the present essentially 
unaltered." As a consequence of the work undertaken, however, "practically all internal 
vestiges of the defining historic character have been obliterated." The rehabilitation, 
therefore, failed the basic statutory test required of every project undertaken on historic 
buildings for purposes of the Federal historic preservation tax incentives program— that 
the rehabilitation work must preserve the essential portions and features of the property 
significant to its historic, architectural and cultural values. 

In determining that the rehabilitation did not meet the Standards, the Chief Appeals 
Officer addressed the underlying question of whether the proposed new use— housing- 
violated Standard 1 (compatible use). In doing so, he rejected the claim that the con- 
version of this special-use building to apartments entailed removal of all interior fabric: 

Considering whether this specialized building could be converted 
to housing, admittedly a difficult question, I have come to the 
opinion that it could have been reasonably successful with 
imaginative exploration of alternatives to total clearance of the 
interior of the cell block. 

While a design proposal for housing that was more sympathetic to the historic structure 
would have been approved, the Chief Appeals Officer took the occasion to note that the 
building would more easily have accommodated other uses, and concluded: 

It seems unfortunate that a historic public building of such 
particular character could not have been retained for an 
appropriate public use, such as library or archives, that could 
have been fitted into it with minimal disturbance of its historic 
arrangement. A creative, affirmative search for alternatives to 
disposal can sometimes lead to the useful retention of a 
seemingly redundant historic public building. 

Nevertheless, in this case, the denial resulted from the loss of historic character involved 
in the specific method of inserting residential units into the building rather than from the 
choice of housing as the use per se . 

Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 




«fe 



1. The property undergoing rehabilitation consisted of a three-story warden's house 
(partially visible, left) and a four-story cell block. 











::i 




2. Interior of the cell block. Cells were 5' x S', separated by IS" load-bearing walls. 



86-076 



LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 



t:n 



CELL BLOCK 



rrrrrrrrr~rrrrrrr 



3. Floor plan before rehabilitation. Section at top of page added in the 1950s. 




k. Floor plan showing proposed insertion of apartments and removal of nearly all 
interior fabric. 



Technical Preservation Services 
Preservation Assistance Division 
National Park Service 
US Department of the Interior 
Washington, DC 



Interpreting^ 



the Secretary of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 86-077 

Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible New Use (nonconformance) 

2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 
Character (nonconformance) 

Subject: ASSESSING UTILITARIAN STRUCTURES TO DETERMINE AN 
APPROPRIATE RE-USE 

Issue: While some historic buildings reveal their character immediately through a 
particular style, a variety of crafted materials, a striking design, or through a 
repetition of ornamental features and decorative detailing, many others do not. The 
character of certain utilitarian structures such as warehouses, ice houses, barns, and 
jails may, rather, be conveyed through a simplicity of materials, form, features, and 
detailing which reflects a specific historic use. While architecturally simple, these 
structures may have played vital roles in a town's commercial, social, or cultural 
history. 

The contemporary uses that some utilitarian structures can serve while preserving 
their historic character are limited; thus, the potential limitations of re-use should be 
recognized early in the planning stage. To meet Standards 1 and 2, it is particularly 
important to be aware of and respect the building's significance as identified in the 
National Register nomination, one aspect of which is understanding the historical uses 
and functions it has served over time. Without a complete assessment of a structure's 
history and character, an owner may inadvertently make changes that compromise its 
unique identity. 

Application: An ice service company determined eligible for National Register 
listing was being rehabilitated for multi-unit residential use. The property consisted 
of a one-story rectangular structure built in 1920 that served as offices, an engine 
room, and coolers; and a 50 foot high windowless, ice storage house added in 192^ (see 
illus. 1 and 2). The firm manufactured, stored, and supplied "pure" artificial ice made 
from artesian well water until that service was rendered obsolete by the invention of 
electric coil refrigeration. The ice storage house had been used since the the 1950s as 
a lumber warehouse. It is important to note that in spite of changes in use from 1920 
to the 1980s the ice storage structure remained "virtually unaltered and stood as rare 
material evidence of a time in American history when household and commercial 
operations depended on the delivery of blocks of ice for preservation of foodstuffs." 

The Part 2 application outlined a series of changes required to provide light and 
ventilation for the "problem use" structure, and to make the exterior generally more 
compatible with newly conferred residential zoning. Specifically, windows and doors 
were to be cut on two side elevations on four levels and balconies added (see illus. 3). 
Stair towers would also be constructed to meet fire code requirements. When the 
State reviewed the application, some concern was expressed about the new windows, 
but it was felt that overall preservation concerns had been met in the rehabilitation of 
an unusual structure that might otherwise have been demolished by the city. 



86-077 

Retention of the structural pilasters and interior cork wall sheathing were cited as 
positive aspects of work, as well as passive energy conservation through solar retrofit. 

Disagreeing with the State's recommendation for approval, the regional office denied 
the project, citing violation of Standards 1 and 2. A letter to the owner stated in part: 

Conversion of an ice-storage building. ..which will probably be 
listed in the National Register as a rare example of its type. ..to 
use as an apartment building is a drastic change in use and 
requires too many significant changes to the fabric of the 
building. The distinguishing character of the main part of the 
building is inherent in the tall, solid brick walls, unrelieved 
except by pilasters, without window openings. Cutting window 
and door openings and adding balconies on four levels on the two 
long sides of the structure significantly alters the original 
character. ..The appended stair towers add to the changes... 

Because the property had not been formally listed and was therefore ineligible for 
appeal, the owner requested an administrative review that would provide guidance on 
possible final certification. In his letter of concurrence with the Region, the Chief of 
the Technical Preservation Services Division wrote: 

After carefully reviewing the documentation provided, I 
concur. ..that the proposed rehabilitation does not appear to meet 
the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." 
The new window openings would dramatically alter the character 
of this monolothic structure. Furthermore. ..I have serious 
reservations about the building's continued eligibility for the 
National Register if the proposed rehabilitation is carried out. 

Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



86-077 




1. The historically important 1920s ice company firm consisted of a low 
rectangular structure together with a 50 foot high, ice storage house. Neither 
structure may seem to be of particular architectural "attraction." The simplicity 
of construction and lack of decorative detailing, however, parallel a specific use 
for that period of our commercial history. 




2. Ice storage house prior to rehabilitation. The massive brick structure was 
historically designed and constructed to be windowless on all four sides in order to 
enhance thermal efficiency. (The one opening seen near the top of the building is 
a small attic vent). 



86-077 







3. The rehabilitation proposal involved cutting windows on two highly visible side 
elevations and adding balconies. The National Park Service determined that the 
degree of change to accommodate this particular re-use proposal was not 
consistent with the historic character of the building; thus, approval was denied. 






"echnical Preservation Services 
Reservation Assistance Division 
National Park Service 
J.S Department of the Interior 
Washington. D.C. 



Interpreting 



theTSecretary of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 86-078 

Applicable Standards: 4. Retention of Significant Later 

Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance) 
6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 
Missing Architectural Features Based on 
Historical Evidence (nonconformance) 

Subject : SELECTIVE RESTORATION OF MISSING HISTORIC FEATURES 

Issue: When a significant feature of a historic building is missing at the outset of 
rehabilitation (for example, a porch, cupola, or storefront), one option is simply to 
acknowledge the loss as part of the building's history and to repair the remaining 
materials and features. If documentation exists, however, the recommended approach 
is to accurately restore the missing feature or features to the primary period of 
historical significance as identified in the National Register nomination. The 
documentation used to corroborate the re-building of distinctive missing features 
generally includes pictorial information (photographs and drawings) as well as physical 
evidence. 

Sometimes an owner may use drawings and photographs of the building as it appeared 
at various times in its history, then selectively restore missing—and often highly 
decorative—features from different periods. As a result of using an inconsistent 
restoration planning approach, an appearance may be created that never existed 
historically. Thus, it is particularly important to be aware of a building's historical 
significance, one aspect of which is understanding and respecting those architectural 
changes that have taken place over time so that a project meets Standards 2 and k. 
Incomplete research or the arbitrary use of historical documentation can jeopardize 
certification of a rehabilitation. 

Application: In 1907 a two-story, wood-frame hotel was constructed with a mansard 
roof featuring multiple dormers, a distinctive cupola, and a double-decked porch on all 
four elevations (see illus 1). In 1920, the structure was modified; specifically, the 
dormers and cupola were removed and a full third story created. By the 1980s, the 
original porch had been reduced to one-story on the front elevation (see illus. 2) and 
removed entirely from the sides, retaining a small portion of the double porch only on 
the rear. In spite of the changes over time, the hotel, located on a circle in the center 
of the small town together with the county courthouse and other key structures, 
clearly contributed to the significance of the historic district and was certified by the 
NPS (see illus. 3). 

Interior and exterior rehabilitation included the relocation of an existing stair, repair 
of the primary entrance, restoration of a two-story porch and cupola, construction of 
a two-story kitchen addition, and painting and general repairs to the guest rooms. 
When the State initially reviewed the application, additional documentation was 
requested and some concerns were expressed about interior changes; on balance, 
however, the project was recommended for certification to the regional office. 



86-078 

The regional office denied the project for nonconformance with Standards 2, k, 5, and 
6. Removal of a portion of the original porch and alteration of the plan of the upper 
floors were both cited. Central to the denial, however, was the misuse of 
photographic documentation to restore two significant architectural features missing 
at the outset of rehabilitation— the porch and the cupola. The region concluded that 
the restoration as undertaken could not be justified based on the two photographs 
submitted with the application. One showed the building after construction in 1907 
and the other showed it in 1984. The region's letter stated, in part: 

Rehabilitation of the hotel includes the restoration of two 
prominent significant features of the original hotel, its two-tier 
porch on all four facades and the central cupola surrounded by a 
balustrade. Pictorial evidence documents that these features 
existed in an earlier period; however, the building has evolved over 
time and the pictorial evidence submitted does not support 
restoration of the cupola. ..Restoration of the cupola would create 
a historic looking building that never existed. ..Restoration of the 
two-tier porch is similar to the cupola issue. Documentation does 
not show that double porches ever existed on all facades after the 
roof was changed. ..The cupola and porch proposals represent a 
selective restoration of original significant features and violate 
Standards k and 6. 

At the appeal, the owners presented an additional photograph dating from 1920 that 
had not been part of the application package reviewed by the region showing the hotel 
without the dormers and cupola, but with the two-story wrap-around porch (see illus. 
4). This additional information suggested another valid restoration option reflecting 
the 1920s modifications. However, upon careful evaluation, the Chief Appeals Officer 
concluded that the owner's restoration approach had, in fact, not been consistent with 
any one period in the building's history and therefore did not meet the Standards. In 
his letter to the owner affirming the region's denial, the Chief Appeals Officer wrote: 

During the course of our meeting you provided additional 
photographs. ..showing the building fully three stories high, with the 
later simplified roof line and with the double deck porch, but 
without the dormers and cupola. The emergence of this photograph 
offered a third option: to recreate the appearance of the hotel 
during this intermediate period in the building's history. However, 
comparison of this 1920 photograph with the views of the work "in 
progress" presented in the appeal shows that the 1920 appearance 
of the building has not been achieved. ..however, a cupola recalling 
the original cupola has (also) been constructed. The current 
rehabilitation, therefore, has given the building an appearance not 
known to have existed historically, for no evidence has been 
brought to light conclusively indicating that the cupola still existed 
after the roof had been changed to one slope and the walls had been 
raised to full three stories in height. 



86-078 

In the final paragraphs of this letter, the Chief Appeals Officer suggested that the 
project might be brought into conformance if the owner would agree to remove the 
cupola in order to restore the historically valid 1920 appearance of the hotel. 



Prepared by; Kay D. Weeks, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



86-078 



I: 




.2 
o 

. U 
£ c 



s s 

.-t u 

ti o 





x: 


0) 


u 


o 

-C 


o 

Q. 




<U 




u 


00 <U 


c 


"O 




| 


* 


4) 


o 

to 


3 

3 




O 


c 


"O 


o 






nj 


•M 




td 


a; 


*-> 


■a 


c 


3 


U 


— 4 


E 


c 


^ 


•— « 





10 


o 


<u 


TJ 


u. 




Z3 


u 


+-• 


ex 




en 




i_ 


<U 


aO 


> 


o 


• -^ 


♦j 


+-» 


o 


u 


.C 


c 




10 



JQ 



86-078 




2. The hotel in 1984, prior to rehabilitation. The cupola and dormers are missing, and 
although a one-story front porch spans the primary elevation, it bears little 
resemblance to the two-story historic porch shown in the 1907 photograph. The hotel 
was certified as contributing to the sigif icance of the historic ditrict in its existing 
condition. 




3. The hotel structure in 1984— shown from the steps of the county courthouse—a key 
structure at the edge of the small town since its original construction in 1907. 



86-078 



THE SPORTSMAN'S 

PARADISE FOR HUNTING AND 

FISHING 




A COMFORTABLE HOME FOR TRAVELERS 



m 

| 

I 



\ i 



.V : '-t 

m 



4. An advertisement of the hotel dating from c. 1920, 
showing the building in an intermediate stage of its evolution 
over time. Note the cupola is missing; the dormers and 
mansard roof have been removed as part of an interior change 
to create a full third story. The highly distinctive two story 
wrap-around porch, however, remains. 







5. Hotel under rehabilitation for tax benefits. The restored cupola 
and two story front porch can be seen. On appeal, the Region's 
denial was upheld. There was neither photographic documentation 
nor physical evidence to support restoration of the building to the 
appearance shown here. The result was a "selective" restoration of 
architectural features that— while commercially appealing—could 
not be historically documented to the 1907 or the 1920 appearance. 



echnical Preservation Services 
Reservation Assistance Division 
Jational Park Service 
JS. Department of the Interior 
Vashmgton, DC 



Interpreting 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 86-079 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (conformance) 

9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ 
Additions (nonconformance) 

10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions 
(conformance) 

Subject : COMPATIBILITY VERSUS REVERSIBILITY IN NEW ADDITIONS TO 
HISTORIC BUILDINGS 

Issue: Standards 2, 9, and 10 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for 
Rehabilitation" are used in the evaluation of new additions to historic buildings. It is 
important that a new addition be designed and constructed so that the character- 
defining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, 
damaged, or destroyed in the process of increasing the building's size. This means that 
the new addition should be compatible with the historic building in terms of mass, 
materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color. The size and scale of the addition 
should also respect the historic building, and be attached if possible to the rear or an 
inconspicuous side. Further, new additions to structures should be reversible so that if 
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be 
unimpaired. 

Occasionally architects and owners will propose an addition to a historic building 
which they argue could be removed at a future date without damaging the basic form 
and integrity of the structure. Often the materials used in these additions, such as 
glass, canvas and clear plastic, are cited as proof that the additions are temporary. 
The issue, however, is not the permanence or impermanence of the materials used to 
construct the addition. If an addition adversely alters the character of the historic 
building, regardless of its presumed reversibility or temporary nature, the project will 
be denied certification. Rehabilitations must meet all applicable Standards to receive 
certification. 

Application: A small, circa 1900 railroad depot which is individually listed on the 
National Register was rehabilitated as a restaurant. The character and picturesque 
quality of this depot prior to rehabilitation (see illus. 1) was largely defined by the 
conspicuous, slate-covered, hipped roof that projected broadly beyond the exterior 
walls to shelter the station's platform. The exterior walls on four sides of the building 
were decoratively treated with a quarry-faced limestone foundation, smooth red brick, 
and limestone stringcourses and window moldings. The use of these multi-colored 
materials and architectural features such as arched windows, leaded glass transoms, 
and wood brackets on stone corbels served to link the visually rich exterior walls with 
the prominent roof. 



86-079 

In order to make the project economically feasible, a new addition to the depot was 
built to increase the seating capacity of the restaurant. An addition with large plastic 
windows with striped plastic walls and roof was constructed around almost half of the 
depot's exterior walls and was attached along the eaves of the building. Awnings were 
hung from the eaves around the remaining half of the building (see illus. 2). 

The project was denied certification by the NPS regional office on the basis that the 
rehabilitation violated Standards 2 and 9. In the letter of denial to the owner, the 
Regional Director stated that the addition and awnings obscured exterior, decorative 
architectural features and had altered the building's historic form. 

The owners appealed the denial, stating that the addition did not destroy nor obscure 
historic fabric. The owners contended that the architectural features were visible 
inside the new addition, and that the addition and awnings were carefully designed to 
result in little or no damage to the historic fabric of the building, therefore meeting 
Standard 10. 

The Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the owner that the addition and awnings 
resulted in no damage to significant historic fabric, and was therefore technically 
reversible. However, the regional office's denial of certification was affirmed. The 
Appeals Officer agreed that the rehabilitation did not meet Standard 9, which 
specifically states that alterations and additions "shall not be discouraged when the 
design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the 
property . . . ." Although the architectural features and building materials of the wide 
overhang and the historic exterior walls were visible inside the new addition and 
behind the awnings, their relationship to the design and form of the overall building 
had resulted in the loss of the historic character of the exterior of the depot. As the 
Appeals Officer stated in his letter to the owner: 

Whether it is a temporary, reversible addition or a more permanent 
addition to the building, it is fundamentally incompatible in size, 
form, and detail with historic character of the historic depot. Since 
the addition obscures and alters such a substantial portion of the 
historic building's significant exterior, I have to conclude that the 
rehabilitation is not consistent with the historic character of the 
building. 

Prepared b y: Jean E. Travers 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



86-079 




1. Pre-rehabilitation view of building from railroad tracks: Note brackets, 
stone corbels and stringcourses. These features occur on all sides of the 
building. 




L 



2. Post-rehabilitation view of the new addition and awnings from street. The 
addition and awnings obscure a substantial portion of the exterior. 



echmcal Preservation Services 
reservation Assistance Division 
lational Park Service 
l S Department of the Interior 
Washington. D C 



Interpreting 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-080 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 
5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features 
and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 

9. Compatible Contemporary Design for New 
Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance) 

10. Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions 
(nonconformance) 



Subject : INCOMPATIBLE ALTERATIONS TO HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR 
SPACES 

Issue : Historic residential interiors often contain highly decorative architectural 
features such as mantels, woodwork, ceiling medallions and crown moldings that are 
readily recognized by owners and architects as significant and therefore worthy of 
preservation. However, when assessing the historic character of interiors prior to 
rehabilitation, the spaces themselves are often overlooked. Important spatial qualities 
can include a room's proportions, defined by ceiling and wall dimensions, the size and 
number of openings between rooms, and the arrangement of rooms that link spaces on 
a particular floor. Just as any alteration to a historic interior needs to preserve 
important architectural features, such an alteration needs to be compatible with 
significant spatial qualities. Alterations which adversely alter or destroy important 
interior spaces with new partitions, or floor and ceiling cuts— while perhaps not 
destroying decorative features such as mantels — may still result in loss of the 
interior's historic character. Projects in which this occurs will not meet Standards 2, 
5, 9, and 10 and may therefore result in denial of rehabilitation certification. 

Application : A four-story duplex townhouse, originally designed as a single family 
dwelling, was rehabilitated into five apartments (see illus. 1). This townhouse 
possessed a high degree of integrity and architectural distinction prior to 
rehabiliation. Although the building had been used as a roominghouse since 1930, and 
vacant for four years prior to acquisition by the present owner, the significant interior 
spaces, finishes and features were remarkably intact. Of particular significance was 
the second floor with its three parlor rooms which retained crown moldings, pocket 
doors and mantels. Of equal importance in defining the historic character of the 
interior were the interior spatial qualities. These three parlor rooms were designed as 
a sequence of large square rooms divided by pocket doors. 

The project work on the building's exterior was sensitively done. The exterior of the 
building was gently cleaned and selectively repointed. The historic windows were 
repaired. However, several incompatible alterations occurred to the interior of the 
townhouse to accommodate the five apartments. The basement was subdivided, and 
the staircase was removed to permit the introduction of two units and the bedroom of 



87-080 

a third duplex unit, the main living spaces of which are on the second floor. The 
second floor, the most architecturally significant portion of the interior, sustained 
substantial amounts of new construction (see illus 2-7). A freestanding closet was 
installed in the first parlor. A large stair and kitchen were constructed in the center 
parlor, and a bath, utility and storage room were placed in the rear parlor. Although 
the third and fourth floor rooms, originally serving as bedrooms, were more simple in 
their architectural detailing, substantial alterations and removal of historic fabric 
nevertheless occurred (see illus 8-11). Entrance doors from the hallways to these 
rooms were removed and new entrances created. The closets and interior walls 
separating the bedrooms were removed to allow for a new interior plan dividing this 
space on the third and fourth floors into two, two-story (duplex) apartments. Two new 
staircases were also constructed in this space. The historic staircase and stairhall 
were maintained on the third floor, but removed on the fourth to accommodate new 
bathrooms. In reviewing the rehabilitation application, it was the Regional Director's 
finding that these interior alterations resulted in substantial loss of historic fabric and 
incompatible alterations to the building. The project was denied rehabilitation 
certification on the basis of Standards 2, 5, 9, and 10. 

The owner appealed the region's decision, emphasizing the retention of significant 
historic fabric on the exterior and interior. Crown moldings, mantels and pocket doors 
were repaired and retained. New construction was placed away from historic walls 
and ceilings in almost all cases so that new partitions would not abut crown moldings 
and baseboards. The owner insisted that the majority of historic interior walls and 
spaces had been retained and all distinguishing architectural features preserved to the 
extent that if the new construction were to be removed in the future, the historic 
character of the interior would remain. 

The Chief Appeals Officer agreed with the Regional Office and affirmed the denial of 
rehabilitation certification. In his letter to the owner, the Chief Appeals Officer 
described the significant spaces of the interior and how they had been changed by the 
rehabilitation. 

Although it is evident that efforts were made in the rehabilitation to avoid 
destroying ornamental features such as crown moldings and pocket doors, I 
find that the alterations have in fact damaged the overall historic character 
of this building's significant spaces. Although historic interior walls remain 
on the second floor and in the third and fourth floor hallway, large amounts 
of historic fabric nevertheless were sacrificed to allow for the new room 
plan on the third and fourth floors and for the intrusion of three new 
staircases in the building. I find the alterations to the parlor floor the most 
destructive. The three formal rooms, historically of approximately equal 
size, have been significantly altered by new construction. The new 
construction in the center room, effecting the most severe intervention in 
terms of the amount of new building and loss of historic fabric, has further 
altered the original spatial qualities of the second floor overall. Although 
the rear room is still partially visible from the front room, I find the new 
kitchen wall and stair balustrade in the center room so invasive as to 
destroy the sequence of space that this series of rooms was consciously 
designed to envelope. The alteration to the parlor floor is sufficently 



87-080 

damaging to the character of this building that I would have upheld the 
regional office on that change alone. Therefore, it is my determination that 
the rehabilitation is not consistent with the historic character of the 
building and that it fails to meet Standards 2, 5, 9, 10. 



Prepared by : Jean Travers, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 




1. Building facade: This duplex rowhouse featured a 
formal series of 3 parlor rooms on the 2nd floor. 



87-080 




PLAN- 



^E-FOftE ftEHAfr 



PLAM~ AFTEPi REHA£> 



2. 2nd floor plan: Originally a side hall plan with 3 parlor rooms all of 

similar dimensions. Note extensive new construction in these rooms, especially stair 

and kitchen in center parlor room, and new wall for bathroom in rear parlor. 



87-080 





3. and k. Pre-rehabilitation: 2nd floor. 

Note view through 3 parlor rooms divided by pocket doors. 

Center parlor room below now houses a staircase and kitchen. 




87-080 








P 



( 



5. Post-rehabilitation: 2nd floor. Note 
new staircase and partition in center parlor room, 
new freestanding partition to the right of parlor 
door in front room. 




6. Work in progress: Center parlor. New 
partition wall for kitchen designed not to abut 
historic ceiling, yet is centrally located in roon 






&7-0&0 




— -i 








7. Post-rehabilitation: Rear parlor room. 
New partition divides previously square room. 



■ 



1 



I 



fciah 







8 and 9. Fourth floor room, 
pre-rehabilitation (left) and 
in-progress (above). Note the 
insertion of the new staircase 
into the original bedroom in 
the post-rehab view. 



37-080 







I 



■p 



~* 



I I! 





10. Work in progress on third floor showing 
penetration of wall between historic bedrooms, 
new staircase inserted in room and view to 
fourth floor above. 




1 1. Post-rehabilitation view of original staircase 
maintained as a part of rehabilitation, but fourth 
floor is fllored above, preventing access. 



echnical Preservation Services 
reservation Assistance Division 
lational Park Service 
S Department of the Interior 
Washington. D C 



Interpreting 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-081 



Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (conformance) 

Subject : INTERIOR ALTERATIONS RESULTING IN LOSS OF AIR/LIGHT SHAFT 

Issue : Standard 2 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" 
states that "the distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or 
site and its environment shall not be destroyed." The interior of a historic building 
contains many different features that may be character-defining, including obviously 
decorative features or examples of fine craftsmanship such as doors, moldings, 
stairways, mantles and plasterwork, but equally important to the historic character of 
a building may be its layout, which includes the floor plans and the way in which rooms 
and other interior features are arranged. In many cases, it may be as important to 
preserve the general building layout as it is to preserve the historic shape of the 
building, including voids or spaces which may contribute to this shape. However, there 
are some instances when openings (voids or spaces) in historic building may not be 
character-defining. In such instances, and particularly if these spaces no longer serve 
the purpose for which they were originally designed, it may sometimes be acceptable 
and in conformance with the Standards to eliminate them in the rehabilitation. 

Application: A modest two-story, turn-of-the-century rowhouse which was built in 
1902 originally as working-class housing, contained four "railroad" flats, two on each 
floor separated by a center vestibule and stair, and a lightshaft in the rear (see illus. 
1). Rehabilitation plans appropriately called for the retention of the four units. 
However, although the basic "railroad" plans were retained for each flat (despite some 
relatively minor changes), rehabilitation did result in the elimination of a narrow 
(approximately three feet) enclosed light shaft which separated the two sets of flats 
(see illus. 2). The National Park Service acknowledged that the narrow light shaft had 
lost its function and did not meet minimum standards for light and air, but noted that 
this alone did not justify its removal since Department of the Interior regulations 
state that "the Standards take precedence over other regulations and codes in 
determining whether the historic character of the building is preserved in the process 
of rehabilitation. . ." Thus, the necessity of meeting health and safety code 
requirements is not a factor taken into consideration by the National Park Service in 
its review of a rehabilitation project. More importantly, the National Park Service 
determined that obliteration of the lightshaft did not result in significant changes to 
the floor plan, nor did it alter the character-defining features of the exterior. The 
"exterior continues to contribute to the significance of the historic district in which it 
is located, and the interior still preserves its original center-entrance plan." In short, 
the rehabilitation was determined to be in conformance with the Standards because 
"those components that are important in defining its character have been retained ." 



87-081 

In a second, very similar project, lightshafts in two identical turn-of-the-century 
apartment buildings were also determined not to be character-defining (see illus. 3). 
Although originally utilitarian (primarily as ventilating shafts for the bathrooms), 
when the buildings were constructed about 1900, these shafts had never been very 
effective at providing light to the stairs or bathrooms in these three-story buildings 
because of their narrowness. Over the years the six original apartments had been sub- 
divided, and the rehabilitation plans called for the creation of additional units which 
would result in completely eliminating the airshafts. The National Park Service 
determined that the airshafts or lightwells were not significant character-defining 
features. "Because the proposed changes in apartment layout eliminated the original 
need for these lightwells they were rendered useless. Of course, the fact that an 
existing element of a building is suddenly without purpose is generally not sufficient 
reason to dispense with it, if it is significant . However, in the case of these buildings, 
the lightwells were not particularly significant or character-defining features, since 
they lacked notable distinction in design, workmanship and materials." 

Prepared by; Anne Grimmer, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 









87-081 



1. Original floor plan showing the two first floor "flats" separated by center staircase 
and lightshaft. Note that lightshaft was completely enclosed, and not visible from the 
rear of the building. 





Original Plan 
1st Floor 



New Plan 
1st Floor 



2. New floor plan after rehabilitation shows that although lightshaft has been 
eliminated, basic concept of "railroad flat" remains. 



87-081 







( 



3. This original floor plan shows the lightshaft (shaded) that was determined 
not to be a character-defining feature and therefore eliminated in the 
rehabilitation of these two identical apartment buildings. 



echnical Preservation Services 
reservation Assistance Division 
lational Park Service 
1 S Department of the Interior 
,/ashington, DC. 



Interpreting 



the~Secreta r y of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-082 

Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character 

5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features 
and Craftsmanship 

6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 
Missing Features 

Subject : ALTERATIONS TO INTERIOR LAYOUTS 

Issue: Floor plans are often of prime importance in defining the historic character of 
historic buildings. Indeed, in some cases, the floor plan defines the building type. 
Such is the case with "shotgun" cottages, marked by the linear arrangement of rooms 
that gives the form its name. Although alterations to the plan of such structures 
undergoing rehabilitation are possible within the framework of the Secretary of the 
Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," the basic interior layouts of these modest 
structures must be respected, particularly when they have survived intact. 

Applications : Both projects discussed here are double "shotgun" cottages whose 
characteristic room arrangement remained intact despite some deterioration of 
features and finishes (see illus. I and 2). The first was built ca. 1900; the second dates 
from ca. 1890. The original plan of each building is a rectangle having a dividing party 
wall down the middle with four rooms arranged in linear fashion on each side. Sheds 
containing bathrooms had been added onto the rear of each building (see illus. 3 and 
4). Each building was rehabilitated for continued use as residential apartments. 

In the first case, the "shotgun" plan was generally retained in the rehabilitation with 
some modifications (see illus. 5). Kitchens were inserted into the second room of each 
half of the duplex; a bathroom and laundry were inserted into the third room. The 
fourth room in each half of the building was enlarged by moving the partition forward 
a few feet. Despite these alterations, the division of the building into two equal units 
was respected in the rehabilitation. Within each half of the double cottage, the 
interior arrangement of small rooms, one behind the other, was also maintained. Thus, 
on both the exterior and the interior, the building appears as it appeared historically, 
as a modest double cottage in the "shotgun" style. This plan largely determined its 
historic character, which remains following the rehabilitaiton. The project meets the 
"Standards for Rehabilitation." 

In the second case, radical changes made during the rehabilitation obliterated the 
characteristic interior plan (see illus. 6). The separation between the two front rooms 
was destroyed to create one larger room in place of the double parlor arrangement. In 



87-082 

order to enlarge the apartments, the plan was further altered by incorporating almost 
the entire rear half of the right unit into the left unit. The floor space lost to the 
right unit was regained through the addition of a stair to the attic, into which two 
bedrooms were added. In this project the damage done to the historic character of 
this modest building is extreme. The units no longer convey a sense of the original 
"shotgun" plan. Construction of the stair in the right unit has further drastically 
altered the structure by introducing a vertical element missing from the historic 
plan. Finally, the division between the halves of the building was effectively 
destroyed in the rear half of the building. Accordingly, the project fails to meet the 
Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." 

Prepared by; Michael 3. Auer, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



I 



( 



87-082 







1 and 2. Circa 1900 double "shotgun" cottage (above) and circa 1890 double 
"shotgun" cottage. 




87-082 




HrrcHeU I ^TcH&u 



Itvxsm*? It^m*^ 



I 



TSooM ^Z 



l^coH *1 



TSrcM *Z 



T^ooM 4 ! 




-i — i ■ ' ' < 



^ATH 



Kircneu 



T T^ooH ^ 



^— * 



"tSooH ^Z 



"^ATU 



hiTcnen 



-ROOM ^ ? J 



( 



TSooki *t£ 



-T\ooH^l rfbi^M 4 ! • 





3 and 4. Before rehabilitation floor plans of 1900 building (left) and 1890 building (right). 



< 



87-082 




WW [Q 



£=3 






LNiuq 



ca x> 



CD 



> 






L«\/iM.£ 



» ^™""l 



5. After rehabilitation floor plan of 1900 building. 



87-082 




_m 



z ~ LIVING / &iUl 







umt a 







ATflC 










t&zovxo Ftooe- umr b 



6a and 6b. After rehabilitation floor plan of 1890 building. The unit on the left now 
extends across the full width of the building in the rear half. To regain the floor space 
thus lost in the right unit, a stair was added, further altering the plan of this simple 
structure. 



chnical Preservation Services 
sservation Assistance Division 
itional Park Service 
3 Department of the Interior 
ashmgton. DC 



Interpreting 



ffie~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-083 



Applicable Standards: 



2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (conformance) 
9. Compatible Design for New Additions 

(conformance) 



Subject : ROOFTOP ADDITIONS 

Issue : Rooftop additions are often proposed when there is a need for additional space 
in a historic building which is located in an urban area where ground floor expansion is 
not a possibility. There is no specific "formula" for determining when a roof-top 
addition may be appropriate; because each historic building and its setting/context is 
unique, each proposal must be reviewed individually. While it is generally true that 
smaller buildings, three stories or less, are least suitable for new additions, and that 
taller buildings may be more likely to lend themselves to a new rooftop addition, there 
are still notable exceptions. And, it is important to realize that some historic 
buildings cannot accept rooftop additions at all. A building with a very distinctive 
cornice, for example, even though eight or nine stories tall, may be just as unsuitable 
as a smaller building for a rooftop addition, if such an addition would be likely to 
obscure that character-defining feature. Standard 9 does not discourage rooftop 
additions if they do not destroy significant historic or architectural fabric, and if their 
design is compatible in size, scale, color, material and character of the property and 
the neighborhood. The guidelines recommend that all new additions to historic 
buildings be designed so it is clear what is new and what is historic, and that rooftop 
additions in particular be as inconspicuous as possible when viewed from the street, 
and that generally they be set back from the wall plane. 

Application : A rooftop addition was proposed for a four story apartment building that 
was being rehabilitated for continued residential use. The building (actually two 
buildings either built together or designed and built to complement each other) was 
constructed in 1914 in a rather plain, vaguely classical revival style of brick with a 
slightly raised limestone base, beltcourses and some decoratively carved keystones on 
the first floor. It is capped by a simple but fairly prominent dentilled cornice (see 
illus. 1). This building is one of several larger scale apartment buildings located in a 
primarily small scale, single family residential neighborhood. The building itself is 
surrounded on both sides and across the street by two to two and one half story 
rowhouses, and therefore is highly visible within the district. For this reason alone, it 
might appear that the addition of any more height to this building would not meet the 
Standards. 



87-083 

However, using a setback design concept linked to the cornice by a sharply slanted 
pent roof, another floor was added that is only minimally visible on the non-significant 
side elevations, and cannot be seen from the other side of the street directly across 
from the building (see illus. 1). The new rooftop addition and stairtower (see illus. 2-3) 
is visible only on the non-significant and non-character-defining north and south 
elevations of the building. The fact that there are skylights inserted into the new pent 
roof is also unknown to passersby. From the public wayfare the new addition is visible 
only on the non-significant side elevations in the new brickwork rising above the 
original roofline, and the stairtower. This rooftop addition thus preserves the historic 
character of this building, and is in conformance with the Standards. 

Prepared by ; Anne Grimmer, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 






( 



87-083 




\\\ 



. \ $\i 



LlA^fe 




1. This early twentieth century apartment building was actually constructed as two 
buildings of harmonious but slightly different design. 



87-083 




2. New rooftop addition and stairtower visible on the south elevation. 




3. New rooftop addition visible on the north elevation. 



echnical Preservation Services 
reservation Assistance Division 
lational Park Service 
I S. Department of the Interior 
Washington, DC. 



Interpreting 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-084 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character 

5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features 
and Craftsmanship 

6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 
Missing Features 

Subject : SUBDIVISION OF SIGNIFICANT SPACES 

Issue : The imposing lobbies, auditoriums and other grand spaces associated with 
hotels, churches, theaters and other public buildings are typically character-defining 
features of such structures. These major spaces, however, are often part of a spatial 
sequence that has been consciously designed as part of the overall plan of the 
building. Other, adjacent spaces, either leading up to the building's "centerpiece" or 
flowing from it, may thus be essential components of the overall character of the 
structure. Any rehabilitation of such structures must respect the procession of these 
congruent spaces. Isolating them from their context within the overall organization of 
the building may cause a project to violate the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards 
for Rehabilitation." 

Application : A large building constructed in 1925 as a social and residential club for a 
fraternal organization, and subsequently converted to a hotel, a drug rehabilitation 
center and other uses, was rehabilitated as residential apartments. The primary 
entrance to the building was a three-story lobby that was the most prominent and 
most highly ornamented interior space (see illus. 1). At one end of the lobby was a 
monumental split stair leading to a gallery and to two other large public spaces, a 
lounge area known as the "palm room" and a dining room (see illus. 2, 3 and 4). 
Photographs of the lobby demonstrate that the palm room was continuous with that 
space. The palm room was clearly visible through the reredos, and shared the lobby's 
deeply coffered ceiling. The large pendant light fixture in the lobby was balanced by 
an identical element in the palm room. The palm room and the lobby, and to a lesser 
extent the dining room (which opened onto the palm room) were thus perceived as 
components of one large space. 

In the rehabilitation, both the palm room and the dining room were subdivided and 
incorporated into apartments. The palm room was stripped of its decorative features 
and an additional floor was introduced into the space. In the dining room the ceiling 
beams and brackets, panelled wall with niche, hooded fireplace, and other features 
were retained, but incorporated into individual apartments (see illus. 5). To enclose 
the new apartment spaces, a floor-to-ceiling partition was constructed behind the 
ornamental screen between the lobby and the palm room (see illus. 6). 



87-084 

The project was determined not to meet the "Standards for Rehabilitation" on a 
number of grounds. In the palm room both the decorative finishes and the space itself 
were destroyed in the process of inserting two levels of residential space. In the 
dining room, individual features were retained, but in the finished work they appear as 
individual artifacts only, out of architectural context. The sense of the room as a 
coherently organized space is lost. These modifications to the two spaces had adverse 
effects on the historic character of the building, and alone would preclude the project 
from meeting the Secretary's Standards. When these spaces are viewed in relation to 
the overall layout of the building, however, the consequences caused by their 
subdivision appear even more serious. 

The insertion of a solid partition behind the open screen effectively cut off the lobby 
from the palm room. The damage wrought by the rehabilitation to the individual 
spaces thus exceeded the demolition of individual features or their incorporation into 
smaller rooms. The rehabilitation destroyed the formal organization of the spaces 
themselves. The progression from the grand, three-story lobby, up the elaborate split 
stair into the palm room and adjoining dining room was lost, and the historic character 
of the building irreparably harmed. 



Prepared by; Michael Auer, TPS 



These bulletiins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



( 



( 



87-084 




1. Lobby before rehabilitation. Ornamental screen at top of stairs leads to two other 
formal open spaces, the palm room and the dining room. 




2. Plan of lobby (A), adjoining palm room (B) 
and dining room (C) before rehabilitation. 



87-084 




3. Palm court beyond lobby stair. Ornamental screen between the lobby and this 
room is reflected in mirrored wall at the left of the fireplace. All features were 
removed from this room in the rehabilitation. 




k. Dining room, before rehabilitation, and adjoining palm room (right). 



87-084 




5. Lobby and adjoining spaces after rehabilitation. The palm room and dining room 
have been subdivided. A new partition directly behind the decorative screen has 
destroyed the progression of spaces that marked the original design. 



87-084 



V 







c 



c 
rt 

E 

o 
o 






c 
<u 
<u 

l- 

u 

in 
TJ 

c 

a; 

XI 

c 
o 



a. 



chnical Preservation Services 
jservation Assistance Division 
itional Park Service 
3 Department of the Interior 
ashington, DC. 



Interpreting 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-085 



Applicable Standards: 3. Recognition of Historic Period 

(nonconformance) 
9. Compatible Contemporary Design for new 
Alterations/ Additions (nonconformance) 



Subject : INCOMPATIBLE NEW ADDITIONS 

Issue : Entrances and porches are often the focus of historic buildings, particularly if 
they occur on primary elevations. When rehabilitating historic buildings, if an 
entrance or porch is not original and has not acquired significance, property owners 
and architects are free to remove these features and/or replace them. Design and 
construction of new entrances or porch additions, however, must be compatible in 
size, scale, color, material, and character with the historic building, neighborhood, or 
environment. The new construction should not dominate, but be clearly differentiated 
from, the historic building; and according to Standard 3, it should not seek to create a 
false historic appearance. 

Application : An 1880 manufacturing facility at the edge of a registered historic 
district was rehabilitated into a retail store (see illus. 1). The original brick building 
was a simply detailed, two-storied, gabled structure, with a large one-story section to 
the rear. It displayed characteristics typical of its function as an industrial building, 
with large door openings, numerous windows, and a covered loading dock. 

The rehabilitation called for the removal of a ca. 1950 corrugated metal roof covering 
the loading dock, and the construction of a new porch or portico in its place on the 
south side of the building. While the existing roof was a simple addition to the original 
building, it was generally consistent with the industrial character of the building, and 
could have been retained (see illus. 2). However, in the rehabilitation, a decision was 
made to construct a new porch on this highly visible side elevation, making it the new 
primary entrance from a parking lot. The new construction was determined not to 
meet Standards 3 and 9. 

The new porch, which retained and boxed in the surviving pipe columns from the old 
roof, is located in the same general location as that roof (see illus. 3). However, it 
differs from the old in design and scale. It has larger columns and is three feet taller, 
thereby dominating the south side and front of the building. The new portico fails to 
meet Standard 9, in that its size and scale are out of proportion to the historic 
building. The new portico also departs from the industrial character of the building. 
With its deep entablature and massive formal columns, the new portico creates more 
monumental, classical architecture than is consistent with the function and historic 
character of this modest industrial building. The new portico hints of the Greek 
Revival, an architectural phenomenon much earlier than the date when this building 
was constructed. 



87-085 

The rehabilitation could have met the Standards if one of the following options had 
been chosen: 1) retention of the existing side roof, 2) removal of the roof, leaving the 
south wall as it was originally, or 3) construction of a simple new roof, following the 
size and pitch of the old roof. 



( 



Prepared by: Camille M. Martone, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



i 




1. Front elevation of the 1880 manufacturing facility as it appeared 
prior to the rehabilitation. 



♦ 



87-085 




2. South side elevation of the building with roof-covered loading dock 
prior to rehabilitation. 




3. Photograph of building after rehabilitation with construction of 
portico. 



i 



• 



» 



hnical Preservation Services 
jervation Assistance Division 
onal Park Service 
Department of the Interior 
jhmgton, DC. 



Interpreting 



the~Secreta r y of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-086 



Applicable Standards: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 

Missing Architectural Features Based on 
Historical Evidence 



Subject: MATCHING THE HISTORIC WINDOW DESIGN AND DETAIL WHEN 
REPLACEMENT IS NECESSARY 

Issue: A window survey can be a valuable component of rehabilitation project 
planning, particularly for buildings of institutional scale. An objective window survey 
by an experienced person will establish the condition, and repair or replacement needs 
of the existing windows. A critical aspect of the survey—often overlooked—is using it 
to help identify the visual role that the historic window design and its detailing or 
craftsmanship plays in defining the character of the structure. Such an evaluation 
should include the size and number of historic windows in relationship to the wall 
surface, the pattern of repetition, overall design and detail, proximity to the ground 
level and key entrances, and their visibility, particularly on primary elevations— both 
from a distance and up close. It should also consider whether significant interior 
spaces exist in which the windows are distinctive features. If extensive deterioration 
makes it necessary to replace the historic windows— especially those that have 
distinctive muntin patterns or decorative detailing— the replacement windows should 
provide a close visual match of the design, detail, and finish. Using the same type of 
material is always a preferred preservation recommendation to achieve a visual match 
particularly when the windows are seen at close ran&e and when they are important in 
defining the building's historic character. If the replacement windows selected do not 
adequately match the historic confi 6 uration and result in changing the appearance of 
the resource, Standard 6 will be violated. 

Application : A school building that remained as a single component of a previous 
multi-structure complex for the handicapped was being rehabilitated for office use. 
When viewed from a distance across the former campus (see illus. 1 ), the masonry 
school building is identified by its twin entrance towers, steeply pitched gable and hip 
roof, and round-arched entrances on its primary facade. When viewed closer, as one 
would see the primary south elevation when approaching either of the entrances, the 
windows become distinctive features of the building because of their size, number, 
pane configuration, and high visibility in proximity to the walkway and main entrance 
(see illus. 2 and 3). Finally, from the inside (see illus. 4), the historic windows have 
distinctive muntin detailing, shadow lines, and finishes. 

An important aspect of the application was inclusion of a comprehensive window 
survey. Based on the survey, the applicant contended that total window replacement 
was necessary. NPS agreed that the windows were deteriorated to the point that total 
replacement was appropriate. Once that issue was resolved, the main question 
remainin 6 in review was to determine whether the owner had selected a replacement 



< 



87-086 

window that was consistent with the building's historic character. The owner's first 
option was a wood replacement unit, but an aluminum replacement unit with 
sandwiched muntins was instead selected based on a combination of factors such as 
faster delivery time, meeting energy code requirements without having to install 
storm windows or interior energy panels, and the lower cost of the window units 
themselves. In making an overall decision as to whether the project could be 
certified, NPS concluded that the design of the replacement units was not consistent 
with the building's historic character. As part of the denial letter, NPS wrote: 

Regarding the windows, on the basis of the window survey, 1 
accept that replacement of the twelve-over-one is warranted; 
however, I find that aluminum replacement windows with 
sandwiched muntins are quite inconsistent with the character of 
this structure. The twelve-over-one windows are an integral 
component of the external architectural design of the building, 
and preservation of their visual qualities is not dispensable. 
Although you have attempted to match the pane configuration, 
the muntins themselves are flat; the change in appearance of the 
windows as a result of these sandwiched muntins between double 
glazing fails Standard 6, which requires "in the event 
replacement is necessary, the new material should match the 
material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, 
and other visual qualities." 

In rejecting the design of the proposed replacement units, NPS gave the owner an I 

alternate course of action to bring this aspect of the project into conformance with the 
Standards. This was to select a commercially available wood replacement window that 
would match the historic design and have true divided single-glazed panes rather than 
applied exterior muntins. Finally, if an energy panel was desired, this commercially- 
available feature could be applied inside the sash or, alternatively, a standard interior 
storm window could be used. Such a window system would preserve the detailing of the 
historic windows and the historic appearance of the windows would be retained not only 
from a distance—but equally important in this case—from up close. 

Prepared by ; Kay D. Weeks 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique 
facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



• 



87-086 




1. The former school building is characterized by its distinctive form— massive yet only 
three stories in height--its twin towers, unusual arch-shaped entrance and series of large- 
scale, twelve-over one windows that were designed to provide maximum daylight in the 
classrooms. 




2. and 3. The windows and window openings as one would see them close to the building's walkwa 
entrance establish the importance of their design and detail. 



i 




k. From inside as well, the detail, design 
features, shadow lines and finishes are 
all part of the character of the window. 
If a historic window is so deteriorated 
that it needs to be replaced, a matching 
replacement window is the most 
appropriate choice to meet the 
Secretary's Standards within a 
rehabilitation project. 



♦ 



Technical Preservation Services 
Preservation Assistance Division 
National Park Service 
U.S. Department of the Interior 
Washington. DC 



Interpreting 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-087 



Applicable Standard: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 

Missing Architectural Features Based on 
Historical Evidence (nonconformance) 



Subject : INAPPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS 

Issue: Inappropriate replacement windows can easily detract from the historic 
appearance of an entire building and change its historic character. The National Park 
Service requires an applicant to show that repair cannot be accomplished and that 
replacement is necessary due to an extensive level of deterioration. Once this 
determination has been made through proper planning, any replacement window needs 
to match the historic sash, the pane size and configuration, the glazing, the muntin 
detailing and profile, and the historic color and trim. This is true whether the window 
is a simple one-over-one, double-hung unit, or a double-hung sash with multi-light 
division. Also, whether the replacement is made of wood or aluminum, special custom 
work is nearly always required to achieve a satisfactory match. If the principal design 
features differ from the historic window, it is likely the new windows will violate 
Standard 6 and, in consequence, project certification will be jeopardized. 

Application: One of the larger commercial buildings in a district of intact 19th 
century structures was being rehabilitated for office use. Built in three sections and 
unified with a handsome Italianate facade in about 1875, the entire structure occupies 
the intersection of two major streets on the front, and extends the length of one city 
block at the rear. As part of the application process, a request was made by the 
owner to install replacement windows because of the deteriorated condition of the 
original windows. NPS responded affirmatively by letter stating that replacement in 
kind of the historic sash was acceptable. NPS would further permit the owner to use 
aluminum window units but, in this case, imposed a set of special conditions that had 
to be met for approval. The NPS letter to the owner said: 

...On any facade where wholesale replacement is necessary, 
aluminum double-glazed replacements will be acceptable 
provided: 1. they are custom built to match the size and shape 
of the existing window; 2. all glazing is clear; 3. the pane sizes 
and configuration exactly match the originals; k. all false 
muntins are exterior applied and closely match the originals in 
profile; and 5. all interior and exterior wood window trim is 
repaired or replaced to match... 

After work was completed by the owner on the building, the project application was 
reviewed again by NPS for conformance to the special conditions. NPS denied final 
certification, in large measure, for the inappropriately designed replacement units 
installed. The different material (aluminum rather than wood) was not an issue in this 
particular case. NPS wrote: "After lengthy negotiations over the issue of window 



&7-0&7 a 

replacement, we approved the removal of the historic windows and established 
parameters for the design of the new windows. These parameters were not met, and 
the new windows detract from the historic character of all three public facades of the 
structure. ..This is particularly unfortunate in light of your arguments that they would 
preserve the historic appearance better than storm sash over the existing units." 

Before and after photographs revealed several design deficiencies in the new window. 
Where one over one double-hung windows had existed historically on the building's 
primary facade, the replacement windows were a "fixed" design with both upper and 
lower sash on the same plane; the horizontal piece applied as a meeting rail is actually 
flat, and consequently unable to cast the familiar shadow line of the historic window. 
Finally, there was a dramatic difference in color, from a light cream color to dark 
brown (see illus. 1 and 2). On another key facade, where there had been historic four- 
over-four double-hung windows, fixed sash were installed, the light divisions were 
altered, wider muntins were used, and the color of the windows was changed (see illus. 
3 ,4 and 5). 

After NPS denial, the applicant sought to bring the replacement windows into 
conformance by a series of cosmetic changes, including relocating the horizontal 
muntin at the top of the four-over-four window, and applying wood trim to the 
aluminum muntins in an attempt to create a thinner appearance (see illus. 6 and 7). 
This proposal was also rejected by NPS on appeal. In a final letter to the owner, the 
Chief Appeals Officer explained: 

In view of the prominence of these windows, I do not I 

believe that any superficial, cosmetic changes to the 
muntins — instead of replacing the existing sash and 
installing accurate replicas of the originals— can be 
made that would bring the project into compliance. 

Prepared by: Kay D. Weeks, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



t 



87-087 




i 
i 
o 

•M 

u 

<u 
c 
c 
o 
u 

CO 



o -o 

c 

2 £ 

•— < (Tj 

rtf — 1 
— • <+-t 

fl O r 

"> !2 

c 8> S 

C "io HH 
■2 * C 

■M O > 

_C CL> rtt 

0) ■*= X) 

to -C 

< -o > 
CO 

> -° 

> a) 



P. > -m 



CsJ 




= U 0) 



87-087 



***■*%» 



< 




3. Before rehabilitation, the windows on another street 
elevation were four-over-four units that feature delicate, 
attenuated muntins. The historic window is a double-hung 
design; the shadow line that the meeting rail casts at the 
center of the two-part window is a distinctive quality. 




4 and 5. After rehabilitation, there is a striking change in the 
appearance of the entire facade due to the installation of 
inappropriate replacement windows. In addition to the 
obvious color disparity, the unit is noticeably on one plane 
rather than double-hung. The muntins are also much heavier 
and there is no meeting rail. 




87-087 




Ff£FC6£D Tf A TM^MT fTT^n^W& JWLl 



/-> 6W3T" J& HCWZ.. MUMTlM LOCATION 
>^- — -^ 

ppopceeo muwtiM peioovpcM 



XT j"-f>g 




g,aggpgL W^ 



c<CAL£- ^" =- 1 -O" T( 



6. In an attempt to bring the inappropriate four-over-four replacement units (see k and 
5.) into conformance with the Standards, two alternatives were proposed. In proposal A, 
the horizontal muntin at the top would be relocated so that all eight lights would be of 
equal size like the original. A 3 1/2" wide aluminum strip would be applied in an attempt 
to recapture some aspects of the meeting rail. Even after these adjustments, however, 
the upper and lower sash would read as a single, fixed unit; the muntins are also too wide 
and too flat. 



87-087 




fll 



rescue tot roKzcvm- 



XT' MCfM1Cr*TM- "luHTlH f -L3 

midmx cerveeri top Vet-, 



-".UHTT+5 ' CIVTOON- CMD 

vA.ue)a»er /NMnrrecr vyy- 



to ssr+reo nur+nr+e 



/tply •&' thct- » ru.- width 
§r&rsTtHe> aooTcr4;wjgp 

«CTloH% TO fCriZET+TiN. « 

va'Tc/t. rBsneTer scncHs 




tl 



RVME ELEVATbM 



•V4*- I'-O* 




receweo screws r*m pilU 
ro<_ts> e Ki/ .miK e>R*c/Hci>, /»<) 
or sumceHT ucHotm pot 
r-TTrcHMeHT p met7k. -bsc.- 

msoo tphi-i section 



MeT(M- secncN 



y*pp THM PETML 



<o 



irtoicraa (?%+r colccs 



7. In alternative B, proposed changes included installation of a wood brick molding. In 
an attempt to make the muntin appear thinner and visually recessed, the wide aluminum 
muntins would be painted a charcoal gray; trapezoidal shaped wood strips would also be 
applied to the existing flat muntin and painted to match the existing window color. Even 
making these modifications, the replacement window did not match the detailing of the 
historic window—the depth of the frame and muntin was still far too shallow, and the 
muntin profile and width was still inappropriate. This proposal was also rejected. 



«l 



technical Preservation Services 
^reservation Assistance Division 
Mational Park Service 
J.S. Department of the Interior 
A/ashmgton, DC. 



Interpreting^ 



the Secreta r y of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-088 



Applicable Standard: 6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 

Missing Architectural Features Based on 
Historical Evidence (conformance) 



Subject: RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER SMALL-SCALE BUILDINGS - REPLACEMENT 
WINDOWS 

Issue: If a determination has been made that the historic windows cannot reasonably 
be repaired due to an extensive level of deterioration, a replacement window needs to 
be selected with care in order to preserve the historic character of the building. Any 
replacement window should match the historic sash, pane size and configuration, 
glazing, muntin detailing and profile, and historic color and trim. This is particularly 
important where small, residential buildings are concerned and the windows are highly 
visible due to their proximity to the sidewalks and streets. Using the same material is 
always the preferred preservation option to achieve a satisfactory match; and in some 
cases with small buildings it may be the only possible way. Special custom work is 
frequently required. If an inappropriate window is selected, it is usually difficult to 
make post-installation design and detailing adjustments to the new window in an effort 
to bring the window into conformance with the Standards. 

Application : Three workers' rowhouses were rehabilitated into subsidized family 
housing (see illus. 1). The buildings are simple in character and distinguished only by a 
corbelled cornice on the facades and large wood windows with 2/2 sash on all 
elevations (see illus. 2). The historic structures are situated in particularly close 
proximity to the street, and consequently their facades are highly visible. 

In the course of the rehabilitation, all the historic wood window sash, which were 
deteriorated and not salvageable, were replaced. The replacement windows installed 
consisted of a single-hung aluminum window with fixed upper sash and a screen panel 
placed directly below the upper sash in the same plane, a meeting rail considerably 
wider than the original, muntins sandwiched between the glass, and a bronze colored 
finish (see illus. 3). These windows were determined not to meet Standard 6 in that 
they did not match the existing windows in design, color, profile, and muntin 
configuration. 

The 2/2 wood windows, with truly divided window lights, were an integral part of the 
design of these small and simple buildings. The new aluminum windows fail to respect 
the character and the visual qualities of the original windows. The screen panel 
directly below the upper sash altered the double-hung appearance of the original 
windows, and the stile and rail profiles along with the sandwiched muntins did not 
adequately duplicate the size and form of the original windows. 

A new proposal to modify the appearance of the aluminum windows was subsequently 
submitted in an attempt to more closely approximate the visual qualities of the 
original windows. A specially shaped exterior frame with a thin muntin would be 



87-088 

milled of wood and applied over the existing flush metal sections of the new aluminum 
windows (see illus. 4). However, it was determined that this modification did not 
capture the historic apearance of the existing wood windows. Wood frames fabricated 
with central dividing muntins and applied to each window would not faithfully 
duplicate the configuration of the old windows and would read as a temporary 
treatment, rather than an integral component of the sash. In view of the proximity 
and visibility of these windows to the street, any superficial or cosmetic change to the 
existing replacement sash, regardless of material, would not be consistent with the 
historic character of this building. 

To bring this rehabilitation into conformance with the Standards, the owner decided to 
replace the new aluminum windows, which were clearly visible from the street, with 
new wood sash duplicating the originals in size, profile, muntin configuration, and 
composition (see illus. 5 and 6). With the new wooden sash in place, the project was 
subsequently certified. 



Prepared by: Camille M. Martone, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particluar case. 



87-088 




1. Pre-rehabilitation photograph of workers' rowhouses (front 
elevation). 




2. Pre-rehabilitation photograph of historic two-over-two double-hung 
windows that had a thin vertical muntin and wooden molding (brick 
molding) around the frame. 



87-088 




3. Post-rehabilitation photograph of 
aluminum replacement window. The vertical 
muntin was sandwiched within the insulating 
glass and the double-hung appearance changed 
since the screen panel was installed directly 
below the fixed upper sash. 



k. Aluminum replacement window with a 
wood mock-up of an applied unglazed sash 
frame and muntin placed over the upper 
aluminum sash. The applied frame and 
muntin look like temporary add-ons, rather 
than matching the historic sash. 



87-088 






5. New wood replacement window as 
approved. If possible further refinement 
(although not required in this case) would 
have been to install the half screen on the 
inside rather than on the front of the upper 
and lower sash. 



6. Post-rehabilitation photograph of historic 
rowhouses with matching wood windows. 



'echnical Preservation Services 
'reservation Assistance Division 
National Park Service 
J S Depanment of the Interior 
Vashmgton. D C. 



Interpreting 



ffie~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-089 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 

5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features 
and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 

6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 
Missing Architectural Features Based on 
Historical Evidence (nonconformance) 



Subject : INCOMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS: CHANGES IN SHAPE AND 
DIMENSIONS OF WINDOW SASH AND MUNTINS. 

Issue : The selection of replacement windows that successfully match the visual 
qualities of historic windows involves a thorough understanding of the importance of 
the individual elements of the historic windows themselves. The shape and dimensions 
of muntins and sash can be particularly important in large, multi-pane sash that are 
repeated across a simple, architecturally unadorned facade. In many historic 
industrial, institutional and multi-story commerical buildings, the rhythm created by 
the rows of windows across the facade becomes a strong design feature and as such, 
important in defining the historic character of the building. Seemingly small 
differences between the replacement window and the historic window, such as the 
muntin shape or size, cumulatively can change the overall appearance of the building, 
and result in failure of the rehabilitation to meet the Secretary of the Interior's 
Standards for Rehabilitation. 

A late-nineteenth-century mill building located in a registered historic district was 
distinguished by its strong horizontal form, low gabled roof, and large, multi-pane 
windows. The historic windows were wood, 16-over-16 double-hung, arch-headed sash, 
and unfortunately very deteriorated (see illus. 1-2). The repetitive spacing, design and 
detail of the sash, and planar qualities of the double-hung windows created a strong 
visual pattern on the otherwise unornamented facade. These windows, therefore, were 
the dominant architectural feature of the building. As such, preservation of their 
visual qualities was critical to preserving the historic character of the building. 

The replacement windows, however, did not adequately duplicate the visual qualities 
of the historic windows, specifically in appearance, shadow lines, muntin detail and 
planar qualities. In addition to the change from an arch-headed to a square-headed 
sash, a number of other distinct changes have occurred to the historic appearance of 
these windows. The double-hung, historic wood windows have been replaced by fixed 
metal units with much narrower sash dimensions, noticeably changing the planar 
relationship of the upper and lower sash. The resultant effect is that at certain angles 
the replacement windows have the appearance of the upper and lower sash being in the 
same plane, rather than duplicating the appearance of the historic, double-hung sash 
(see illus. 3-5). 



87-089 

The thickness of the meeting rail so evident in the historic sash has been reduced in 
depth creating a weaker shadow line (see illus. 5). The use of an applied aluminum 
muntin grid rather than true 16-over-16 wood muntin divisions has caused significant 
changes to the appearance of the windows (see illus. 6). The muntin grid clearly does 
not match the original, since the new muntins have a rectangular rather than 
trapezoidal profile, it has a ribbed surface, and it extends beyond the plane of the rails 
and stiles. The projecting grid, furthermore, creates additional shadow lines that did 
not exist on the historic windows. The historic muntins were flush to the surface of 
the sash, integral to the sash frame construction and trapezoidal in shape after 
puttying. 

These numerous deficiencies give an awkward and incompatible appearance to the 
windows and the overall building that is especially noticeable given the large size and 
number of the openings. As a result, the window replacements were determined to be 
inconsistent with the historic character of the building and therefore do not meet 
Standards 2 and 6. 



Prepared by: Jean E. Travers, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



87-089 



-sarssMriKalPSi* ''£j}9r* 







1-2. Pre-rehabilitation view of the building showing deteriorated 16-over-16 
windows. Note previous owner's effort to duplicate arch-headed sash with sample 
unit on 2nd floor. In the view below, note how the upper and lower sash are set on 
different planes, a characteristic feature of double-hung windows. 




87-089 




3-5. Post-rehabilitation view of the building showing replacement windows. In 5, note 
how the reduction in depth of the meeting rail has produced a flat appearance to the 
window. The appearance of a historic double-hung window with sash on different 
planes and a heavy shadow line created by the meeting rail has been lost. 







4. 



'■■■■I 




87-089 



5. 



Exterior 



Vertical Section of Replacement Window 

L M - fr 



Exterior surface 
of upper frame 

Aluminum muntin 
grid frame 



Aluminum muntin g 
applied to outside 




Interior 



Sealed insulated glass united 



Wooden muntin grid 
applied to inferior 



6. Shop drawing showing applied muntin grid projecting beyond the exterior surface of 
the sash. Also note rectangular shape and the two grooves on the interior and exterior 
muntin grids which produce the ribbed appearance and additional shadow lines that did 
not exist on the historic windows. 



"echmcal Preservation Services 
'reservation Assistance Division 
National Park Service 
J.S. Department of the Interior 
Vashmgton. DC 



Interpreting 



tFie~Secretarv ot the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-090 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 

5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features 
and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 

6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 
Missing Architectural Features Based on 
Historic Evidence (nonconformance) 



Subject : INCOMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS: CHANGES IN COLOR, SIZE, 
AND CONFIGURATION OF SASH AND FRAMES 

Issue : The selection of replacement windows that successfully match the visual 
qualities of historic windows involves a thorough understanding of the importance of 
the individual elements of the historic window themselves. Some of the important 
elements that must be considered are the size and shape of the frames and sash, 
muntin and mullion profiles and configuration, the configuration of the window itself, 
the reveal of the window (depth of the window within the opening) and trim detailing 
around the frames. In some cases, the historic color of the window, if known, can also 
be important in defining its historic character. Failure to specify and install 
replacement windows that adequately match the visual qualities of historic windows 
will result in failure of the overall rehabilitation to meet the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 

Application : Window replacements were planned as part of the rehabilitation of three 
revival-style commercial buildings located in a registered historic district and built 
between 1920 and 1930 (see illus. 1-3). The historic windows above the storefronts 
were wood, residential in scale, double-hung, multi-pane sash typical of the early- 
twentieth-century revival styles (see illus. k-5). The windows were characterized in 
part by narrow muntins, meeting rails, and sash. The attenuated proportions of the 
wood members created a delicate appearance of the historic frames and sash that was 
a character-defining feature of the historic windows and the building. In addition, 
groupings of double-hung windows were common; heavy mullions separated the window 
units and featured a raised vertical edge. The frames and sash were painted dark 
green. Historical photographs of the buildings also indicated the frames and sash were 
painted a dark color, a traditional color treatment for red brick, Colonial-revival style 
and stucco, European-revival style buildings. 

Aluminum, double-hung windows with attached metal grids on the exterior and interior 
to simulate muntins were chosen to replace the originals (see illus. 6-7). Several of 
these windows were installed to evaluate their effectiveness in matching the adjacent 
historic windows. These windows were, however, determined not to adequately 
duplicate the visual qualities of the historic windows in their color, proportion, size, 
and installation detail of the originals. A light ivory color was chosen, rather than the 
dark green of the historic sash, causing the windows to stand out against the facade 
rather than to recede as the dark-colored historic sash had done (see illus. 8). The new 



87-090 

sash and frames were not properly sized to custom-fit the openings in the manner of 
the originals. As a result, the amount of glass area was reduced and the delicately- 
designed appearance of the historic frames and sash was replaced by a much heavier 
appearing unit. The meeting rails of the replacement unit were almost twice the 
thickness of the historic ones, and the grids, although trapezoidal-shaped, were 
significantly wider than the historic muntins. The blocking of the opening reduced the 
sash area while significantly increasing the exposure of the frame with its attached 
aluminum subf rame and metal panning. The flat metal panning bore no relationship in 
size or profile to the historic wood molding detail found around the frames of many of 
the historic windows in the buildings. It also was proposed that the mullions in the 
multiple window bays be covered in metal in a manner that would eliminate the 
decorative edge detailing. Finally, the appropriateness of the metal grids on 
residential scale windows of this type on low-rise buildings was a questionable 
treatment. These numerous deficiencies resulted in denial of certification for tax 
benefits. 

Although this window unit was manufactured by a company that had produced 
compatible replacement windows for historic buildings, the company typically designs 
windows for larger openings. This particular window unit was unsuitable as a 
replacement for the small-scale, residential style windows of these three buildings. 
On a larger window opening, the dimensions of the meeting rail and grid might have 
been acceptable. But no reduction in the dimensions of the members was made when 
the sash size was reduced to fit these small windows, and the sash were not made to 
custom-fit each opening or the size of the historic sash. 

The owner asked if an alternative panning shape more similar to the profile of the 
historic frame and brick molding would sufficiently replicate the historic appearance 
of the windows. Close examination of the shop drawings (see illus. 9) identified that 
the problem could not be rectified by a different panning shape, since the 
inappropriate color, size and configuration of the members and installation detailing 
would not be affected. Nothing short of a different window unit, correctly sized and 
detailed and in an appropriate dark color, would resolve these difficulties and bring 
the project into conformance with the Secretary's Standards. 



Prepared by: Jean E. Travers, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



87-090 




Building 1 



1-3 Pre-rehabiliation views demonstrate the residential scale of the second and third 
floor windows. Note how the dark color of the window sash and frames makes the 
windows less prominent on the upper floors of buildings 2 and 3. 



&7-090 





Building 2 





Building 3 



87-090 







4-5. Pre-rehabilitation views of the deteriorated 
historic windows. Note beaded mullion above, 
thin muntins, meeting rails and sash on paired 
windows and the simple double-hung window below. 




ini'iiiTTd 



87-090 








< 



6. Proposed replacement window, exterior. 
Note rectangular panning, extensive subframe 
creating additional shadow lines. Compare the 
meeting rail and muntin dimensions with the 
historic sash in k-5. 



7. Proposed replacement window, interior. 
Note the three layers of metal comprising the 
subframe, and the decreased size of the sash 
and glazed surface within the opening. 



i 




( 



8. Proposed replacement windows on third floor and original windows below. Note 
how dark sash and frames are unobtrusive, light sash and frames create a striking 
pattern on the red brick facade. 



87-090 



7 t-HtW 



£XTEPHOt*> 
fAMKll 






^pnich EXTWiop> 



NeW KiEW 




Ortl^lNAL 
ORI^IKJAU 



OPTIMAL 



OPS ^MAAX- 



ORIGINAL 






9. Drawing of proposed window and original window and frame location. Note how 
new sash and frame are set closer to the exterior and within the window opening. The 
owner's alternative panning identified above will not correct the deficiencies of the 
sash. 



'echnical Preservation Services 
'reservation Assistance Division 
Jational Park Service 
J.S. Department of the Interior 
Vashmgton, DC. 



Interpreting 



ffie~Secretarv ot the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-091 



Applicable Standards: 9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ 

Additions (nonconformance) 

Subject : ADDING TO FREESTANDING HISTORIC BUILDINGS 

Issue : The first consideration in planning a new addition is the potential physical 
impact on significant historic materials and features. Probably of equal importance, 
however, is the potential visual impact on the building's historic appearance or 
"character." Because freestanding historic structures are often visible from all four 
sides, they tend to be particularly vulnerable to exterior change. For this reason, if 
the factors of size and high visibility are not carefully weighed prior to construction 
of the new addition, a distinctive historic form and profile can easily be expanded into 
a building with a completely different character. When a new addition is simply too 
large in relationship to the freestanding historic building, then placing it on a 
secondary elevation, using a reveal, using compatible materials, and making a clear 
differentiation between old and new may still not offset the addition's impact on the 
historic character. When it is determined that a new addition violates Standard 9, 
project certification will be denied. 

Application: In three rehabilitation projects under review by the National Park 
Service, the size of the new addition was the major cause for denial. In each case, the 
historic structure was a freestanding building (a residence, a school, and a bank) with a 
distinctive form or shape. 

First, a two-story vernacular brick residence dating from 1915 recently underwent 
rehabilitation for use as a dormitory. When a new, large-scale addition was attached 
on a secondary, but highly visible, elevation as part of the project, NPS denied the 
project for preservation tax incentives. While recognizing the success of the architect 
in differentiating the new construction from the historic building (including wall 
reveals, roofing material, face brick with a soldier course, and windows and cornice 
details), NPS determined "the addition overwhelmed the historic structure in mass and 
was too prominently sited." Before rehabilitation, the historic building was 
asymmetrical in shape, consisting of a main block and several subsidiary— but 
proportionally similar—components and highlighted by a prominent wraparound wooden 
porch. After rehabilitation, the form was still asymmetrical, but the new brick 
addition became the most prominent architectural feature of the building from several 
elevations, its distinctive angular form dwarfing the historic porch in size and scale. 
In summary, the addition drastically changed the form of a residence that was typical 
of its time, and, in changing the form, compromised the historic character (see illus. 1 
and 2). 

In the second case, a 1926 classically-styled freestanding bank building with large 
round-arched window openings was rehabilitated to extend its historic commercial 
function. When new bank offices were added along one side of the historic building, 
essentially doubling the size of the historic structure, the project was denied for tax 
benefits: NPS explained, "The new addition gives the building a radically different 



87-091 

size, shape, and appearance from what it had been for sixty years since its 
construction... In effect, it obliterates the character of the structure as a 
freestanding building, nearly obscuring an entire flank." Before rehabilitation, the 
building was easily identifiable in the district by its symmetrically rectangular mass 
and balanced formal windows; after rehabilitation, the form of the building became a 
decisively asymmetrical wedge shape with a prominent new entrance replacing the 
historic tripartite windows (see illus. 3, 4, 5). The materials and architectural 
detailing of the new addition were not issues. Finally, NPS stated in the denial letter 
that a smaller addition could have been certified. 

In a third case, a ca. 1839 two story brick structure, three bays wide, with distinctive 
stepped gables had been expanded in 1912 by a two-story ell when its use as a school 
for women was changed to use as a private residence. In 1985, the structure was 
added to again for use as a restaurant, then submitted to NPS for the investment tax 
credit. Project work included construction of a kitchen and greenhouse addition and 
construction of a storage building on the site. After review, NPS denied the 
rehabilitation, primarily citing the impact of the new addition both on the building and 
the district. In NPS' denial letter, it was stated that "prior to rehabilitation, the 
structure was a simple, freestanding, L-shaped structure readily identifiable in 
character." The NPS letter further explained to the owner that after rehabilitation 
"the historic form of the structure is no longer clearly distinguishable; the kitchen- 
bakery addition of approximately 2,000 square feet has vastly increased the size of the 
building, turning the former L-shaped plan into a U-shaped plan and thus obscuring the 
essential form of the historic structure. ..the addition overwhelms and competes with 
the historic structure rather than being subordinate to it." It was noted in the NPS 
denial letter that making the school into a restaurant would have been a compatible 
use if the addition had been smaller in relationship to the historic structure; also, the 
greenhouse addition in itself would not have precluded certification (see illus. 6). 

Prepared by ; Kay D. Weeks 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



87-091 




IP ' , ^Si 



^ *. 



1. The c. 1915 freestanding residential structure is visible 
from all four sides; an unadorned brick side wall is a foil for 
the most distinguishing feature of the house— the wood 
wraparound porch. 




2. A new dormitory wing has been constructed on the side 
elevation shown in illustration 1. Because of its height, 
degree of projection, distinctive shape, and high visibility, the 
new addition has become the dominant feature of the house 
and has changed the historic character. 



87-091 



3. This freestanding bank 
structure, located at a major 
intersection in the district, was^ I 
readily identifiable before 
rehabilitation by its simple 
rectangular form and its large, 
arched openings. 





4. The historic bank and new bank addition are 
shown in relationship to the surrounding streets 
in the district. The previously rectangular form 
of the freestanding bank has been dramatically 
altered by both the size and shape of the 
addition. 







5. Even with a setback, 
appropriate height, compatible 
materials, and clear 
differentiation between new and 
old, the new work now dominates 
the resource and the setting. The 
historic bank can no longer be 
seen from a major side street. 



87-091 



HISTORIC SCHOOL 




6. The side and rear elevation of the 1839 brick school building are shown 
here on the far right (the later ell is not visible) together with three new 
components added as part of the rehabilitation project — a greenhouse, a 
kitchen building with stepped gables matching the historic building, and a 
storage building. Because the new addition has changed the historic 
character to a dramatic degree, the project was denied tax incentives. A 
smaller kitchen wing — planned and sited differently—could have been in 
conformance with the Standards. The greenhouse itself was not an issue. 



S7-092 

The character of the historic interior spaces appears to have been 
easily adaptable for modern residential use. Unfortunately, during the 
course of your rehabilitation work on these units, large portions of the 
first floors were removed in order to create two-story spaces. The 
creation of those two-story spaces required the destruction of both 
historic material and the distinguishing spatial concept of the most 
significant areas of each house, in violation of Standard 2. 
Furthermore, the design character of the new space is incompatible 
with the vernacular character of the building, thus violating Standard 9. 

An alternative to removing portions of the floor would have been to regrade at the 
rear to permit more light to enter the basement through enlarged windows. It was 
further noted by NPS that the incompatible spatial changes were all the more 
regrettable because they were not essential to a viable reuse scheme for the buildings 
or to extending their useful life. 

Prepared by : Kay D. Weeks 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 




87-092 



II 

1. The historic character of the structures as mill workers' housing 
remained; that character, as NPS noted, was still forcefully 
conveyed by both the exterior and the interior. 




2. The plan shows room size and arrangement; units converted to two-story 
spaces by cutting through the first floor are denoted by shadowing. 



87-092 



3. A typici 
prior to 
rehabilitati 
defined by 
ceiling, rec 
space, and 
simplicity < 
detailing. 




k. As part of the 
rehabilitation, the 
historic space was 
dramatically redefined 
by removing the first 
story floor, revealing 
the basement level. 
Two separate 
rectangular spaces were 
then made into one 
rehabilitated living 
unit. This inappropriate 
treatment violated both 



schnical Preservation Services 
-eservation Assistance Division 
ational Park Service 
S Department of the Interior 
/ashmgton, D.C. 



Interpreting^ 



the Secretary of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-093 



Applicable Standard: 5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features 

and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 

Subject: ALTERATION OF INTERIOR LAYOUTS 

Issue : Standard 5 of the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" 
requires that "distinctive stylistic features" characterizing a building be treated with 
sensitivity. Such features may include the interior floor plan or arrangement of 
spaces important in defining the historic character of the building. Radically changing 
a floor plan may result in a loss of historic character. 

Application : A three-story, commercial structure built in 1890 was marked by 
commercial space on the ground floor and office or residential space above (see illus. 
1). As a result of many changes over the years, the commercial portion of the building 
retained little historic fabric; the space behind the storefronts was otherwise 
undistinguished (see illus. 2). Consequently, the ground floor offered the owner 
considerable latitude in making changes during the course of the rehabilitation. 

The upper floors were distinguished by an oversized atrium extending through the 
second and third stories. Arranged around this atrium were two distinct rings of 
rooms, the inner ring fitted with windows intended to borrow light from the atrium, 
and the outside ring lit by exterior windows (see illus. 3, and 4). Over the years many 
of the window sash facing the atrium had been filled in, although their location was 
clearly evident from the surrounding trim. The open third floor hallway overlooking 
the atrium had been enclosed (see illus. 5). Nevertheless, despite these changes and 
some deterioration of fabric and finishes, the distinctive historic floor plan and the 
unusual sequence of spaces made up by the atrium and double ring of rooms had 
largely survived (see illus. 6 and 7). The rehabilitation plans for the upper stories 
called for retention of the atrium but the removal of all historic fabric behind the 
perimeter walls of the atrium in order to create open plan offices. In addition the 
perimeter walls of the atrium would be rebuilt in a different configuration, with doors 
and windows suggestive of the historic ones, but narrower and arranged in different 
locations. 

Despite later alterations, the historic plan and the interior spaces of the building on 
the upper floors are quite distinctive, even though carried out in relatively simple 
materials. The arrangement of two rings of rooms around the atrium is unusual for a 
building of this period and construction and needed to be retained in any project. The 
proposed rehabilitation would all but obliterate this distinctive configuration, thereby 
greatly impairing the historic character of the structure, and violating the "Standards 
for Rehabilitation." 



Prepared by : Michael Auer, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitations, are not necessarily applicable beynd the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



37-093 




1 



A 



I II 1 1 JIH Bill 



.;: 



*-■■ 111 




1. 1890 commercial building prior to rehabilitation. 









ii 



y 




r * ■ 



2. Typical ground floor space before rehabilitation. 



87-093 




n» 





3. View of central space showing atrium extending 
through the second and third floors, with skylight 
above. The second floor doors shown lead to rooms 
beyond. Windows have been blocked in, but their 
configuration is still apparent from the surrounding trim. 
On the third floor the open hallway had been partitioned. 



87-093 



1 "l 




/ • 



H 



k. Interior rooms were fitted with windows and 
doors with transoms to borrow light from both the 
exterior window walls and the rooms facing the 
lighted atrium. 




5. On the third floor, the historic hallway, 
originally open, had been fitted with a solid 
partition; the offices behind it, however, wet 
relatively unaltered. 



87-093 




i 




j : 



6 and 7. Historic second floor plan of atrium, hallway and inner and outer 
rings of rooms (left). In the proposed rehabilitation (right), this distinctive 
arrangement would be destroyed. 



jchnical Preservation Services 
eservation Assistance Division 
ational Park Service 
S Department of the Interior 
ashington, DC. 



Interpreting 



thlTSecretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-094 



Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 

Subject : INCOMPATIBLE ALTERATIONS TO SIGNIFICANT REAR ELEVATIONS 

Issue : Before initiating a rehabilitation project it is important to first identify those 
features which are character-defining and which must be preserved. While there may 
not be much doubt whether the primary or front elevation is significant, it is not 
always as easy to determine when the sides and rear, or secondary, elevations are also 
character-defining. However, when a secondary elevation exhibits fine stylistic 
detailing, shape or form unique to the building type or use, when it is highly visible or 
of special historical or social significance to the historic district or neighborhood, it is 
likely to be worthy of preservation. If such a character-defining elevation is not 
preserved in the rehabilitation, the project will not be in conformance with the 
Standards and will be denied certification. 

Application: A vacant and derelict armory building individually listed on the National 
Register was rehabilitated for use as residential apartments. Built in 1912 of red 
brick, the armory was designed in an appropriately militaristic style featuring an 
arched entranceway flanked on either side by a projecting three-sided corbelled bay, 
and a three-story tower. The armory is comprised of two sections: a two-story, L- 
shaped, flat-roofed head house provides the primary elevation facing the street, and 
adjoins a one-and-one-half story, gabled-roof drill shed which spans across the rear of 
the head house, and extends four bays past the edge of the head house (see illus. 1). 
The drill shed parallels the river (which the rear of the shed faces) and is visible from 
the town across the river (see illus. 2-3). 

Despite several alterations made in the 1950s and some deterioration and vandalism 
which occurred during the nearly 15 years the buildings had been vacant, the armory 
had survived in a remarkably intact state prior to rehabilitation. The interior of the 
head house, including a large entrance hall, company parlor, and numerous small rooms 
on both floors, easily accommodated the apartment conversion which was 
accomplished with a minimal loss of historic fabric and character. The interior of the 
75 x 300 feet drill shed was a completely open space with exposed steel trusses and a 
suspended gallery at one end (see illus. 4). During the rehabilitation this large open 
space was converted into twenty apartments by creating two floor levels. To provide 
light into these apartments, skylights were added to the rear of the roof of the drill 
shed, and the rear wall was reconfigured by removing the original paired nine-over- 
nine wood sash windows along with a substantial amount of brick between the piers 
(see illus. 5-6). Nine prefabricated, panelled units which incorporated walls, windows 
and doors were inserted in these newly made openings along the entire length of the 
rear elevation. Wooden decks with privacy screens and steps to the parking lot were 
added for the first floor apartments (see illus. 7). 

If the open space within the drill shed had been a significant, highly detailed space, 
the insertion of twenty apartments on two levels would very likely have been in 



87-094 

violation of the Standards. In this particular case, however, while the concept of 
introducing multiple units into the very plain, open space of the drill shed was in 
conformance with the Standards, the specific treatment of the rear elevation was not, 
and the project was denied certification. 

The drastic changes to the fenestration of the rear elevation were cited as cause for 
denial. The existing historic window openings could have been altered in a manner 
that would have provided light and access to the rear apartments while still leaving 
enough brick to maintain the character of the rear wall. Instead, as the project was 
carried out, the wholesale removal of the sash and most of the brick between the piers 
added up to a significant loss of historic fabric. However, it is the change in 
character of the rear elevation that is most damaging. Installation of the 
prefabricated panels resulted in unacceptable changes in: color and texture (brick red 
to stark white, smooth panels); materials (brick and wooden window sash to 
prefabricated panels and aluminum windows); composition (distinctly vertical to 
distinctly horizontal); and design (industrial to residential). Addition of the wooden 
decks further obscured what remained of the brick, and emphasized the incongruous 
domestic appearance of the rear elevation. Furthermore, the elevation now is highly 
visible to those entering the apartments from the parking lot, and to neighboring 
houses. 



Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



87-094 




1. The facade of the armory before rehabilitation. The gable-roofed drill 
shed extends four bays beyond the head house with its three-story tower and 
three-sided corbelled bay. 



2. The rear elevation of the drill shed. Note the paired, nine-over-nine wood 
sash windows and the high sills which provide much of the character. 







87-094 





l^*<\ X 




jr- £Uft | 



3. View from the rear of the property behind the drill shed looking through 
the trees to the town across the river. 

k. The interior of the drill shed before rehabilitation, showing the exposed 
steel trusses and the suspended gallery at one end. 

v; 




87-094 





5-6. The rear elevation of the drill shed during rehabilitation. Note the 
extensive loss of brick, and how the character has changed with the removal of 
the multi-paned wood sash and the creation of large openings. 



87-094 




7. The rear of the drill shed showing the completed rehabilitation with the new 
skylights in the roof, the prefabricated panels filling the former bricked areas, 
and the new wood decks and privacy fences facing onto a parking lot at the rear of 
the property. 



chnical Preservation Services 
3servation Assistance Division 
tional Park Service 
3. Department of the Interior 
ashington, DC. 



Interpreting 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 87-095 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance). 
9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ 
Additions (nonconformance). 



Subject : NEW CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS: INCOMPATIBLE 
ALTERATIONS TO HISTORIC SETTING 

Issue: The setting of a historic building can be an important element in defining its 
character. Setting is defined as the relationship of the historic building to adjacent 
buildings and the surrounding site or environment: it is the arrangment of man-made 
features, such as buildings and structures and their relationship to each other and to 
their natural environment, such as open spaces, topographic features, and vegetation. 

The Secretary's Standards address the importance of preserving the historic setting of 
a building or district in Standards 2 and 9. Standard 2 emphasizes the need to protect 
distinguishing original qualities or character of a building or site and its environment. 
Standard 9 addresses the necessity of designing alterations and additions that are 
compatible with the character of the property and its environment. The setting of a 
historic resource is often quite fragile, particularly in rural areas where buildings and 
structures are surrounded by large expanses of open space, and in industrial complexes 
where buildings were constructed in specific locations for functional reasons. New 
construction on, or adjacent to, historic buildings, if not carefully planned and 
executed, can dramatically alter the historic setting of adjacent buildings or the 
district. Such work may not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 

Application: A historic district significant as an early-nineteenth century textile 
manufacturing center was rehabilitated as a rental housing community. The district 
was significant in part for its founder's early attempt to group buildings by their 
functions (such as housing and milling) to take advantage of the natural terrain. 
Historically, milling functions were placed adjacent to the river where a waterway 
system was constructed. Buildings for housing and community activities were grouped 
separately across fields (see illus. 1). Although industrial functions had ceased years 
before, and the buildings were deteriorated at the time rehabilitation began, the 
historic setting of the district, in particular the portion of the district where milling 
functions occurred, remained intact. The industrial portion of the district included a 
large mill spanning the river, a machine shop, ruins of another associated mill building, 
an early twentieth century frame structure used as an office, and waterway system 
linking the buildings to the pond and river. These buildings and structures were 
situated across a field and visible from the main street running through the district 
(see illus. 2-3). 

The rehabilitation included the conversion of several of the historic buildings in the 
district into apartments. In the area where milling functions occurred, the machine 
shop and an adjacent frame building were rehabilitated for housing, and a free- 



87-095 

standing, two-story apartment block was constructed (see illus. 4). (Two additional 
apartment blocks were constructed outside the district boundaries.) The frame 
building was substantially altered during rehabilitation and is now linked by a new 
addition to the machine shop (see illus. 5). Illus. 6 and 7 also show the new apartment 
building constructed in the field directly in front of the machine shop and frame 
building. 

The large addition to the frame building and new construction has produced a more 
densely developed environment in the area in front of the machine shop than that 
which existed prior to rehabilitation or historically. It has eliminated the visual 
separateness of the mill buildings from the historic residential buildings in the district, 
and obstructs the visibility of the machine shop from the street which is a main 
vantage point in the district. In addition, the new construction is incompatible in 
design with the historic buildings. The historic mill buildings, in particular the 
machine shop, were simple, unadorned elevations with ordered rows of windows on 
each floor. The new construction, including the alterations and addition to the frame 
building, are characterized by their asymmetrically massed roof forms, porches, 
projecting bays, and have prominent features such as window shutters and palladian 
windows. This new construction is not compatible with the historic setting and design 
of the mill buildings and is inconsistent with the historic character of the district. 
The project work, therefore, does not meet Standards 2 and 9. 

Prepared by: Jean E. Travers, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



87-095 



PRE-REHAB SITE PLAN 




BcMns shop 



Historic district boundaries 

Housing, community buildings, 
mill owner's rssldsncs 



1. Site plan of the district prior to rehabilitation. Note location of the mill and mill- 
related buildings in the SW corner of the district. 



87-095 



;v 




2-3. Pre-rehabilitation views of the machine shop, frame building, and the mill. The 
National Register record states "the mills are set across a wide meadow at the end of 
a formal system of waterways; their isolation points to the mills as a distinct unit." 
Note the unadorned, simple quality of these industrial buildings. 




87-095 



Machine shop 




4. Post-rehabilitation view of machine shop and frame building. Note alterations to 
the frame building and new construction in the previous open space. The new 
construction introduces a variety of architectural forms and features not found on the 
historic buildings in the district. 




I 



1 



5. Note how close the frame building's new addition is located to the machine shop. A 
wood deck links the two structures. The new addition has created a more densely 
developed environment than existed prior to rehabilitation, obstructs the visibility of 
the machine shop, and has introduced architectural forms and features not found on 
historic buildings in the district. The new construction, therefore, has changed the 
visual qualities characteristic of the setting of this district. 



87-095 



Mil] 







' 



■ 



lacnine sn< 




6. Aerial view of this portion of the district showing the alterations to the frame 
building, and a portion of the free-standing new construction on the left. The machine 
shop is in the center right of the picture, and the mill is located in the upper left 
corner. Note the more densely developed environment immediately in front of the 
machine shop. 




7. Aerial view showing blocks of new construction identified as 1, 2, and 3. White 
line is the approximate boundary of this part of the district. 



:hnica! Preservation Services 
servation Assistance Division 
:ional Park Service 
; Department of the Interior 
shmgton, DC 



Interpreting 



ffie~Secretar y ot the Interiors 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-096 



Applicable Standards: 3. Recognition of Historic Period 

(nonconformance) 

k. Retention of Significant Later 

Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 

6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 

Missing Features Based on Historical Evidence 
(nonconformance) 



Subject : UNDOCUMENTED "RESTORATION" OF MISSING ARCHITECTURAL 
ELEMENTS 

Issue : When rehabilitating historic buildings, the repair or replacement of missing 
architectural elements must be based on solid physical or documentary evidence. For 
example, old photographs of the building may show a missing element clearly enough 
to replicate it. Original architectural drawings may also provide this information. 
Sometimes the outline of the missing feature may be clearly discernible on the facade 
or elevation of the building, or may be revealed after removal of a later covering such 
as asbestos or aluminum siding. An accurate reconstruction of the feature such as a 
porch or a rear ell may be based, in part, on excavations made to determine its size 
and depth by the location of buried footings. Finally, key elements may be found such 
as balusters or porch railings that were stored in attics or basements when they were 
removed in an earlier remodeling. 

Any of these situations can provide useful clues necessary to carry out an accurate 
reconstruction of the lost element. However, reconstructions that are not based on 
such physical or documentary evidence, but merely on hearsay or a theoretical design, 
cannot be verified historically, and generally are not in accordance with the 
Secretary's Standards. If, during rehabilitation, some indication of a missing feature is 
encountered, unless adequate documentary evidence exists to guide an accurate 
reconstruction, it is better not to attempt such a treatment, but instead to design a 
replacement that is new but also compatible with the historic building. It is also 
important to remember that later additions or replacements for the earlier feature 
may have acquired significance over time; if so, they should be retained. 
Furthermore, if missing architectural elements are restored on a selective basis, the 
completed building may take on an appearance it never had historically. 

Application : A circa 1872 Italianate brick house, part of a farm complex individually 
listed on the National Register, was rehabilitated for use as a bed and breakfast 
establishment. The impressive, two-story house (see illus. 1), features segmental 
arched door and window openings, a bracketed wood cornice, a lozenge-patterned 
colored slate hipped roof and cast iron roof cresting. When first constructed, the 
house had four porches— on the front, both sides and the rear. Over time, these 
porches had been removed, and only their "ghost" outlines on the brick walls (and the 



88-096 

fact that exterior doors remained on the second story that had apparently opened out 
onto porch roofs) provided clues to the fact that porches had ever existed. Although 
the original porches were gone, a later, elliptical terrace surrounded by a low, 
rusticated cast-stone wall, probably constructed around the turn of the century, 
existed on the primary facade of the house at the start of the rehabilitation. 

As part of the rehabilitation, the owner removed this elliptical terrace and wall from 
the front of the house and decided to "reconstruct" the original porches. Instead of 
using the very distinct "ghost" outlines (which had been removed by the owner during 
cleaning of the exterior brick), the owner used pieces of wood brackets found on the 
property as models to construct new porches. These bracket fragments, the owner 
speculated, came from the "original" porches that had been described by area 
residents as preceding those porches which had left their physical profile on the brick 
(see illus. 2-3). 

The rehabilitation project was determined not to meet the Standards because the 
design of the new porches was not based on conclusive pictorial or physical evidence. 
The new designs did not match the outlines on the masonry, nor were they based on 
historic photographs or architectural drawings of the house. The porches give the 
house an appearance that is not verifiable, yet appears to be historic. This violates 
Standard 3. Although the intention of the owner was to restore the house to what he 
believed to be its original 1872 appearance, in the absence of clear and indisputable 
documentation as to what this was, two appropriate approaches would have been to 
have left the porches off the house or to have based the porch reconstruction on the 
physical evidence (outlines) of the former porches that still remained on the brick 
when the property was first acquired. 

The surviving bracket outlines could have provided ample guidance for quite closely 
replicating these porches. Excavation in front of the doorways might have revealed 
evidence of the location of footings that supported the porches, to document the depth 
of the porches. 

The owner, of course, had the option to retain the elliptical cast-stone wall. Although 
clearly of a later period, this wall did not detract from the Italianate character of the 
house. Its retention would have been in accordance with Standard 4, and 
reconstructed porches based on the "ghost" outline would also have been compatible 
with the wall. 



Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
facts and circumstances of each case. 




88-096 



1. The house as it appeared when acquired by the current owner. Note the "ghost" 
outline of a porch on the front, the second floor exterior doors, and the elliptical cast 
stone terrace. ««.—«-—- 





2-3. The reconstructed front porch (left) and the side porch (right). Their designs 
were based on bracket fragments found on the property combined with area residents' 
descriptions of the porches as they remembered them, but did not match the "ghost" 
outlines that had existed on the brick prior to cleaning. 



:hnical Preservation Services 
(servation Assistance Division 
tional Park Service 
> Department of the Interior 
ishmgton, D.C. 



Interpreting 



thegecreta r y of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-097 



Applicable Standards: 2. 



Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 
Character (nonconformance) 

Compatible Design for New 
Alterations/Additions (nonconformance) 



Subject : INCOMPATIBLE SITE WORK 

Issue : Vacant lots adjacent to historic buildings often provide convenient locations for 
stairtowers, parking lots and other work undertaken as part of an overall rehabilitation 
project. Department of the Interior regulations state that a rehabilitation undertaken 
for purposes of the investment tax incentives "encompasses all work on the significant 
interior and exterior features of the certified historic structure and its setting and 
environment." Development on adjacent lots may result in denial of certification if 
the site work radically affects the "historic qualities, integrity or setting of the 
certified historic structure." (36 CFR 67.6(b)). 

Application: A four-story, three-bay brick structure built about 1869 and located in a 
historic district noted for its brick warehouse and commercial structures was 
rehabilitated for use as residential apartments. The rehabilitation of this structure 
was undertaken as part of a larger project involving three other buildings (see illus. 1 
and 2). 

In order to provide access to this structure and to the neighboring buildings, an 
entrance courtyard was created on the vacant lot bordering all four structures (see 
illus. 3). Principal elements of the new construction included a wall at the property 
line, an entrance pavilion, a three-story steel exterior stairtower, a wall at the mid- 
point of the lot and a covered walkway highlighting the entrance to the building at the 
rear (see illus. k and 5). Additionally, the lot was excavated to provide light and 
access to new below-grade apartments (see illus. 6). 

The new construction contrasts radically with the historic character of the nineteenth 
century warehouse, with the other structures it serves, and with the historic district 
as a whole. The forms and colors of the new work introduce an appearance 
incompatible with the commercial and industrial texture of the district. The entrance 
walls and pavilion, constructed at the edge of the property line, are highly visible at 
street level and do not relate to the scale and texture of the enveloping district. The 
excavation at the rear of the courtyard introduces a level one story below the street, 
which adds a further incongruous note. 



88-097 



In addition, the prominence of the new work serves to diminish the prominence of the 
principal historic structure to which it is attached. The effect is that the historic 
building seems an appendage to the new entrance pavilion and stairtower rather than 
the reverse (see illus. 7). As a result, the project fails to meet the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 



Prepared by; Michael Auer, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
facts and circumstances of each case. 





1 and 2. Four-story commercial structure before rehabilitation. Vacant lot and 
buildings at the right and to the rear were also part of the overall project. 




88-097 



3. Entrance pavilion, front wall and 
stairtower are prominent new site features. 




4. Stairtower provides fire exit 
from building at left. 




5. Covered walkway serves a« th« ■ 
entrance to all uJ'^ZS^TJ^SS^ 



litated structures. 



88-097 




6. The covered walkway spans a courtyard 
excavated for new below-grade apartments. 




7. The new site work subordinates the 
independent historic building to a larger 
composition of radically new and incompatible 

p|pmpnt« 



chnical Preservation Services 
sservation Assistance Division 
itional Park Service 
S Department of the Interior 
ashmgton, DC. 



Interpreting^ 



the Secreta r y ot the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-098 

Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 



Subject : CHANGE TO HISTORIC SETTING 

Issue : The setting of a historic building can be an important element in defining its 
historic character. Setting is defined as the relationship of the historic building to 
adjacent buildings and the surrounding site or environment. Standard 2 of the 
Standards for Rehabilitation calls for retention of the distinguishing "original qualities 
or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment," while the Guidelines 
for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings stress the need to retain "the historic relationship 
between buildings, landscape features, and open space." This relationship between a 
building and its setting can be altered drastically by moving other buildings onto the 
site of a historic structure and by the addition of extensive parking lots and other 
landscape changes. 

Application : A large, finely detailed Neo-Classical mansion, built in 1900 and 
representing the wealth of prosperous mill managers and the specific contributions of 
its locally significant owner to the community, was listed individually in the National 
Register of Historic Places. Although the large lot on which the building stood had 
been overgrown in recent years, the character of the house as an imposing suburban 
residence on a spacious site had survived (see illus. 1). 

In the process of converting the site into an office condominium complex, another 
large house, originally located on the adjacent lot with a similar setback and 
orientation, was moved to what had been the front yard of the individually listed 
building (see illus. 2, 3 and k ). The moved building was turned to face the 1900 
structure. A parking lot with much enlarged street access, including the addition of 
gateposts from the neighboring property, was constructed between the two buildings 
(see illus. 5). A second and much smaller building was also moved from the adjacent 
property and sited at the rear of the listed building. 

Although both of the moved buildings were saved from demolition, their relocation in 
the manner shown here has nearly obliterated the historic setting of the 1900 
building. That building appears as a subordinate element in a new composition bearing 
little relationship to the historic appearance of the property. The central parking lot, 
furthermore, has become the dominant feature of the site (see illus. 6). The project 
does not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation. 



Prepared by: Michael Auer, TPS, and Amy Schlagel, National Register 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
facts and circumstances of each case. 



88-098 





1. Although the site was overgrown, the character of this 1900 house 
as a large suburban residence had survived. 




2. Site plan before rehabilitation began. The 1900 house (A) stood alone on its lot. 
On the adjoining property stood another large house (Bl) and a dependent cottage (CI). 



88-098 





3. The front yard of the mansion has been prepared 

for the relocation of the neighboring house, seen at right. 




4. Site plan after relocation of buildings. The neighboring house was moved and 
turned around (B2) to face the 1900 building (A) across a paved parking lot. The 
cottage associated with the moved house was relocated (C2) behind the 1900 building. 



88-098 




5. Turned 180 degrees, the moved building faces 
the historic one from a distance of 60 feet. 




6. The parking lot completes the drastic 
alteration of the setting. The second relocated 
structure is seen through the porte-cochere at left 



;hnical Preservation Services 
servation Assistance Division 
:ional Park Service 
i Department of the Interior 
.shmgton. DC 



Interpreting 



the~Secretary of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-099 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

character (nonconformance) 
6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 
Missing Architectural Features Based on 
Historical Evidence (nonconformance) 



Subject: SELECTIVE RESTORATION IN HISTORIC INTERIORS 

Issue: When rehabilitating historic buildings, changes that have taken place in the 
course of the history and development of a building and that have acquired 
significance should be respected. If, however, an earlier period in the history of the 
building is clearly identified (in the National Register nomination, for example) as 
being the primary period of historical significance, property owners have the option to 
restore the building to that period if the restoration can be substantiated by historic, 
physical or pictorial evidence. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic 
Preservation Projects defines restoration as "the act or process of accurately 
recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a 
particular period of time by means of the removal of later work or by the replacement 
of missing earlier work." Sometimes a decision is made by an owner to restore 
portions of the building to a particular historical period and to rehabilitate the rest of 
the structure. As a result, a new appearance may be created that never existed 
historically and does not accurately reflect the history and evolution of the building. 

Application: A two-story brick structure, constructed in 1839 as an academy was 
substantially altered in 1870 and again in 1912 when the building was converted to a 
residence (see illus. 1). Prior to rehabilitation as a restaurant, the interior of this 
structure reflected its function as a residence of the early 20th century rather than its 
original use as a school, with a center stair hall plan, six-panel doors, and bullseye 
molding around doors and windows. A one-story hipped roof porch supported by cast- 
iron columns dating from 1870 extended the breadth of the facade, and a two-story 
brick ell, constructed in 1912 when the academy became a residence, extended from 
the southeast corner of the main block. The National Register documentation for the 
historic district in which this building is located cited the academy as being important 
in the history of education in the town. A decision was made to restore the main 
block of the building to its appearance as an academy in the 1870's. While this was 
considered an acceptable approach given the building's significance during that period, 
the restoration was determined not successful for several reasons. 

Features in the main block of the building such as partitions, windows, doors, 
fireplaces and trimwork dating from ca. 1912 were removed and replaced with 
replications of the ca. 1839-1870 features in their original locations. The twentieth 
century center stair (see illus. 2), was removed and replaced with a new stair in an 
attempt to further match the original configuration of the academy floor plan. Also 
included in this rehabilitation was the replacement of the front door, and the change 
in location of the front door and windows to reflect the facade as it appeared between 



88-099 

1839 and 1870. The ca. 1870 porch, however, was retained and preserved, as was the 
ca. 1912 rear ell addition. Although the new stair was based on scattered ghost marks 
and fragments of the original stair, there was no evidence of what the original 
bannister and newel post looked like, and as a result the new appearance is conjectural 
(see illus. 3). Also conjectural is the design of the new front door which was installed 
to replace two ca. 1912 doors. The only evidence existing for the front door was three 
hinges found near the suspected location of the original door. 

Other interior features in the main block of the building were not returned to the 
academy period of the structure. A ca. 1912 door with bullseye molding on the first 
floor and a ca. 1912 arched opening on the second floor, were retained amidst 1839- 
1870 details. In addition, all of the 1839 windows were not reinstalled. On the 
interior, window trim applied over recessed plaster panels was installed in the location 
of two 1839 windows (one on each floor) to represent their original locations (see illus. 
4). Lastly, partitions that had existed on the second floor of the main block from 
1839-1912 were not reinstalled, in order to accommodate one large seating area for 
the restaurant (see illus. 5 & 6). Because only portions of the main block were 
restored, the work was inconsistent, and the rehabilitation failed to return the 
signficant main block of the building to its historic appearance as an academy. 

Selective restoration in this rehabilitation would have been appropriate if the entire 
1839-1870 main block of the building, the significant academy structure, had been 
restored, with the rear ell addition (ca. 1912) being retained and preserved as a 
representative example of the building's change of use. If evidence did not exist to 
accurately restore the building to its academy period, retention and preservation of 
the entire structure as a twentieth century residence would have been acceptable. 



Prepared by : Camille M. Martone, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



8S-099 




88-099 





V *9fcSSft 











m 


.+<■■■■ 




5p« ■ '. ' 


4 l 








MwImmi if 



















o 



.o 

CO 

<u 



o 

Cl 

ra 

■»-> 

u 





88-099 




3. New stair after rehabilitation. Design of stair was not based on historic evidence. 



88-099 






r>i i i * &L 

mw mw mm *■»•"**_'! . 

;^?|.-i'i.'--.ri" 



88-099 



e^"i 




5. Second floor plan prior to rehabilitation. 



///////, 



Dl _> 






<*-rog.tLt,C 



vroa. I see^iui, Pkyxm 






;;/A y/;/////;//A w s T? 




6. Second floor plan after rehabilitation. Note 1839 partitions and window were not 
reinstalled. 



chnical Preservation Services 
Bservation Assistance Division 
itional Park Service 
5 Department of the Interior 
ashmgton. DC. 



Interpreting^ 



ff)e~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-100 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 
5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features 
and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 

Subject: ALTERATIONS OF FLOOR PLANS AND INTERIOR FEATURES 

Issue: In an historic interior, the floor plan, the sequence of spaces, features, and 
finishes can be important in defining the overall historic character of the building. 
Their identification, retention, and protection should remain a high priority in a 
rehabilitation project. Radically changing such elements may result in a loss of 
historic character. 

Application: A three-story school building, with a four-story central bell tower 
constructed in 1886 as the main school for the town (see illus. 1), was rehabilitated as 
residential apartments. Around 1938 the building had been converted to pocketbook 
factory and after 1970 a storage facility. Despite these new uses, the building 
retained a high degree of integrity, both on the exterior and interior, and was declared 
a certified historic structure for its contribution to a historic district. The original 
interior configuration had survived, consisting of a central corridor with a central 
freestanding stair (see illus. 2), with four classrooms off the hall on each floor. Two 
end towers also contained stairs and provided separate entrances for boys and girls to 
the classrooms. Interior trim and detailing that remained intact included beaded 
board wainscotting in classrooms and halls, and Eastlake-style window and door 
surrounds, (see illus. 3). 

In the rehabilitation of the building to accommodate seventeen apartments, the 
central-hall plan was obliterated; the central staircase was removed and bathrooms 
and apartment units were inserted in the space (see illus. k & 5). A new east-west 
corridor perpendicular to the original central hall was installed. Further work 
included subdivision of classrooms with permanent partitions, furring out the interior 
face of the exterior walls, and the subsequent covering of significant amounts of 
wainscotting. 

The existing floor plan of this building was part of the building's character with the 
primary public access to the building through doors in the central tower into a 
spacious center hall, which in turn provided direct access to the classrooms. In the 
completed rehabilitation, circulation through the interior spaces has been drastically 
changed. While the central entrance remains in the same location, access to the 
building is now through a narrow corridor rather than a spacious hall. The central 
stair leading to second and third floor classrooms has been removed, and the original 
four classrooms on each floor have been subdivided. The sense of time and place 
associated with the school building and how it functioned historically has been 
diminished. There is no trace of the distinctive floor plan or spacious hallway that 
once helped define the function and character of this building type. 



88-100 

Another distinctive feature that was characteristic to this building type was the 
panelled wainscotting found throughout the interior. However in the rehabilitation, 
the interior face of the exterior walls was furred out and significant amounts of 
wainscotting were subsequently covered (see illus. 6). This treatment has caused the 
wainscotting to appear fragmented and dis-continuous. The remaining wainscotting 
appears to be randomly placed, and together with the significant subdivision of the 
classrooms prevents a clear understanding of the original classrooms' design and space. 

The rehabilitation could have been successful if the original floor plan had been 
retained and incorporated into apartments without extensive alterations. This floor 
plan could have lent itself to adaptation to apartments if it had been limited to one 
apartment per classroom with the retention of the hallway as a shared lobby among 
residents. However, because of the drastic change to the floor plan, the historic 
character of the building has diminished, and the important progression or sequence of 
spaces through the building, as well as distinctive architectural features were lost. 

Prepared by; Camille W. Martone, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



« 



88-100 







're-rehabilitation photograph of school building. 



/z"^-/^ 




2. Pre-rehabilitation photograph of first floor center stair and hall. This stair was removed in the 
process of rehabilitation. 



► 



X 




I 






-ft 






V 



bC 



x> 

(0 



E 

o 
o 

On 



c 
<u 

J* 

QC 

C 

'c 
<u 

D. 
O 

T3 
QJ 

jC 
U 



-O 



£ 
o 
o 

u 



o 
o 






88-100 




4. Floor plan of first floor prior to rehabilitation. 




5. Floor plan of first floor after rehabilitation. Classrooms and hallway have been 
subdivided into apartments. 



technical Preservation Services 
^reservation Assistance Division 
National Park Service 
J S. Department of the Interior 
Washington, DC 



Interpreting, 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-101 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 
5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features 
and Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 

Subject: REMOVAL OF DISTINCTIVE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND 
REPLACEMENT WITH INAPPROPRIATE NEW FEATURES 

Issue: Interior features in a historic building that are significant in defining the 
historic character and function of a building need to be retained in the process of 
rehabilitation. If the interior has been greatly altered over time and documentation 
indicates that surviving features are severely damaged or deteriorated, flexibility is 
afforded the owner in making further alterations. New features introduced to the 
building, however, must be compatible with the scale, design, materials, color, and 
texture of the surviving interior features. If on the other hand, original interior 
features have remained relatively intact and are important evidence of the building's 
history, they should be retained and preserved in situ. 

Application: A one-story long and narrow railroad depot with a deeply overhanging hip 
roof and double-hung wood windows on all sides, built in 1870 in the Queen Anne-Stick 
style, was rehabilitated into a restaurant (see illus. 1). The depot, which was 
individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, had been extensively 
remodeled in 1891 and retained a high degree of integrity and architectural character 
of that period prior to rehabilitation. Of significance was the structurally and 
architecturally intact interior of the depot. Prior to rehabilitation, this modest 
structure retained virtually all of its historic fabric, including interior spaces, 
features, and finishes. The waiting room, including the original 5-sided ticket booth, a 
wooden ceiling with a wide cove cornice throughout, and tongue-and-groove panelling 
had survived (see illus. 2 & 3). 

The majority of the project work on the building's exterior, including window and roof 
repair, was sensitively accomplished; one exception was the construction of an 
awkward-looking exterior ramp and fence at the south end. Work on the interior 
however, involved incompatible alterations to accommodate seating for the 
restaurant. The ticket booth, a distinctive element that contributed to the definition 
of the historic function of this train station, was removed and the original ticket 
window relocated (see illus. 4). Approximately two-thirds of the plank ceiling and 
cornice, features characteristic of the Stick style, were also removed (see illus. 5), to 
permit full utilization of the second floor. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards 
for Rehabilitation require that distinctive features which characterize a building, 
structure, or site be treated with sensitivity. They also require that the removal or 
alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features be avoided 
when possible. The removal of these intact features and insertion of new 
architectural elements greatly impairs the historic character of the structure and 
violates the Standards. 



88-101 

The ceiling of the depot which was removed to install a functional second floor above, 
was replaced with new ceiling joists dropped below the original first floor ceiling (see 
illus. 5 <5c 6). The new unfinished and exposed wood joists are not in keeping with the 
character of the previously finished waiting room. Further compromising the room 
was the insertion of restrooms and a staircase at one end of the waiting room; two end 
windows were obliterated and the distinctive waiting room was reduced by 
approximately i/k to 1/3. Although some detailing was retained on the interior, it was 
extensively reconfigured, and the new features added were incompatible to the 
building. As a result, the existing 19th century interior lost its integrity and historic 
character. 



Prepared by: Camille M. Martone, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of 
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the 
unique facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



88-101 




1. Railroad depot prior to rehabilitation. 




2. Interior view of waiting room prior to rehabilitation. Note 
wooden ceiling and wide coved cornice. 



88-101 




3. Interior view of ticket booth prior to rehabilitation. This 
historic feature was removed in the process of rehabilitation. 




4. Post-rehabilitation view of waiting room after the removal of ticket 
booth. Note ticket booth window relocated in new stair wall. 



88-101 




5. Post-rehabilitation view of waiting room. Note the removal of 
existing ceiling, and the addition of exposed ceiling joists above. 




6. Post-rehabilitation view of second floor. Original attic space 
converted to restaurant space by lowering the ceiling below. 



echmcal Preservation Services 
'reservation Assistance Division 
Jational Park Service 
IS. Department of the Interior 
Washington, DC 20240 



Interpreting^ 



the Secretary of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-102 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (conformance) 
6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 
Missing/Features (conformance) 

Subject : REHABILITATING PREVIOUSLY ALTERED INTERIORS 

Issue : Rehabilitating a historic building in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's 
Standards requires not only that exterior work be carried out with sensitivity, but that 
interior treatments also be undertaken with equal respect for those significant character- 
defining features which make it distinctive. Generally this means that the rehabilitation 
should retain and preserve as much as possible of the original floor plan and spatial 
configuration, as well as those interior features and finishes that are important in defining the 
overall historic character of the building. 

Some interiors are of such significance that they must be retained almost in their entirety if 
the building's historic character is to be preserved. However, other buildings, because of 
unsympathetic uses or other changes over the years, have been reconfigured on the interior 
and no longer contain notable interior features or finishes that must be preserved. When 
rehabilitating buildings where rooms have been greatly reconfigured, walls torn out, and doors 
and trim removed, the owner is generally afforded some flexibility in making further 
alterations. 

Application : A three-story, brick rowhouse built in 1893 was rehabilitated for residential use 
into three apartments (see illus. 1). Originally constructed as a single-family house, and later 
altered for office use, the building was vacant and had already been partially gutted by the 
time the new owner purchased it for rehabilitation. The previous owner had removed wall 
partitions and, leaving wall studding on the first floor only, stripped the plaster from the 
ceiling joists and removed the one remaining mantel, and most of the decorative door, window 
and floor trim (see illus. 2-3). The staircase, running from the 1st to 3rd floors along one 
wall survived; most of the woodwork which had been removed, had not been thrown away but 
was found later by the new owner piled on the third floor. The second and third floors had 
been stripped of their wall studding and were essentially open spaces. Although the walls 
were gone on the first floor, the studding still remained between what was originally the 
front and the rear parlor, and between the front parlor and the stairhall. 

The spaces and basic configuration of the stairhall and front and back parlors, were retained 
in the rehabilitation, although some of the rooms were converted to new uses necessitated by 
the rearrangement of the first floor into a two-bedroom apartment unit (see illus. 4). As part 
of the rehabilitation, the double-door-sized opening between the front and rear parlors was 
permanently walled-off to provide a bathroom and closets for the apartment. Although this is 



88-102 

generally not a recommended rehabilitation treatment, in this case it was minimally acceptabh 
because it did not destroy an original or historic spatial sequence. That had already been lost 
when the previous owner removed the walls which had traditionally defined these spaces. 

Despite the existing shell-like condition of most of the interior, the new owner restored the 
historic staircase (although code compliance necessitated several changes) and repaired and 
reused the woodwork and trim that had been removed by the previous owner. Because the 
rehabilitation also included a careful restoration of the exterior, which was the major 
remaining character-defining aspect of the building through which it contributed to the 
significance of the historic district, the rehabilitation was certified. 

Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the facts and 
circumstances of each case. 



^===- 




1. The exterior of this 1893 brick 
rowhouse is its primary character- 
defining feature through which it 
contributes to the historic district. 



Flftsr fLOO^ 




88-102 



S£GOkJP FLOOfS 

2. The interior of the house 
after it had been "gutted" by 
the previous owner. The 
photographs of all 3 floors are 
taken from the same location on 
each floor, and show views 
toward the front of the house. 
The new owner was able to 
repair and reuse wood trim 
(here, shown piled behind the 
stairs on the third floor), that 
had been removed by the 
previous owner. 





THlhP FLOOrS 




88-10; 



FIRST FLOOR 




SECOND FLOOR 



3. Floor plans of the interior 
prior to rehabilitation. The 
fireplaces had been removed 
during previous renovations. 
Dashed lines represent open 
stud walls. 




< 



THIRD FLOOR 



4. The redesigned first 
floor after rehabilitation 
showing retention of the 
basic spaces and stair-hall 
configuration. 




i 



FIRST FLOOR REHABILITATION 



chnical Preservation Services 
?servation Assistance Division 
itional Park Service 
3 Deoartment of the Interior 
ishington, DC. 20240 



Interpreting 



ffie~Secreta r v of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-103 

Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 
9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ 

Additions (nonconformance) 

Subject: ADJACENT NEW CONSTRUCTION 

Issue: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation govern new additions to 
historic structures undergoing rehabilitation work. They also apply to new construction 
adjacent to historic structures when the new construction is placed on the same property on 
which the historic structures stand. Furthermore, the Guidelines for Rehabilitating 
Historic Buildings recommend "designing... adjacent new construction which is compatible 
with the historic character of the site and which preserve[s] the historic relationship 
between a building or buildings, landscape features, and open space." Adjacent 
construction that impairs the historic character of a historic building may render the 
rehabilitation project ineligible for historic preservation tax incentives even if the work 
completed on the historic structure itself is otherwise acceptable. 

Application: A college campus that formerly functioned as a Roman Catholic seminary 
was rehabilitated into an extended-care retirement community. Historically the main 
structures of the educational complex were aligned across a formal, terraced platform, 
overlooking the expansive lawns and playing fields that separated the institution from the 
surrounding community. This linear arrangement of the principal campus buildings 
conveyed the impression of an institution proclaiming its presence to the world, while 
retaining a certain detachment from it (see illus. 1). The overall project included the 
conversion of several historic classroom buildings and dormitories into apartment 
buildings. As part of the overall, massive project, three new apartment buildings were 
constructed, grouped in front of an existing structure (see illus. 2 and 3). 

The rehabilitations of all of the historic structures met the Standards for Rehabilitation, 
with the exception of a dormitory constructed at one end of the line of principal buildings. 
(This building, although constructed in the mid-twentieth century, was determined to 
contribute to the significance of the historic district as a physical expression of the 
profound changes undergone by the institution in its last decades.) Both by its location and 
its shape, the structure serves as a terminus to the row of buildings to which it was added. 
The grouping of three newly built structures around the dormitory overwhelms the latter, 
severing its visual connection to the row of historic buildings. As a result, the end building 
is no longer visible from the main entrance to the campus, from what remains of the lawn, 
or from any other principal vantage point in front of the buildings. 



88-103 



Although the new construction is generally sympathetic to the neighboring historic 
buildings in size, scale, color, materials, and design, it fails to meet Standards 2 and 9 of 
the Standards for Rehabilitation because of its impact on the site and environment of the 
building it obscures. 



Prepared bv: Michael Auer, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique 
facts and circumstances of each particular case. 








m 



*$?« 



ii ■•!* 



a * 





1. The alignment of the principal structures overlooking a formal terrace, expansive lawns 
and playing fields was a principal feature of the historic campus. 



88-103 




2. Aerial view of campus. The three new buildings at right visually sever the end building 
from the rest of the row, thereby drastically diminishing its historic character. 



BChnical Preservation Services 
reservation Assistance Division 
ational Park Service 
S Department of the Interior 
/ashmgton, DC 



Interpreting 



ffie~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-104 

Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 
5. Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and 
Craftsmanship (nonconformance) 

Subject : INAPPROPRIATE EXTERIOR PAINTED FINISHES 

Issue : Paint or paint color can be an important factor in defining the character of a historic 
building. Painting a building that has never been painted, or removing paint from a building that 
has traditionally been painted is never a recommended rehabilitation treatment, because either of 
these treatments can change a building's appearance to one that is at odds with its historic 
character. Likewise, when repainting a historic building that is already painted, the new color 
should generally be close to the original, as well as historically appropriate to the building, and 
the historic district in which it is located. 

Application : A derelict, two-story, reinforced concrete, stucco apartment building built in 1941 
was rehabilitated for apartment use. It is a U-shaped structure entered through a deep central 
courtyard, and although quite plain, the building is a characteristic example of the Moderne style 
(see illus. 1). The exterior is accented by rather simple architectural details, which include bulls- 
eye windows, "eyebrow" window canopies, geometric raised panels, and like many other buildings 
in the historic district, features decorative panels of local stone (see illus. 2). 

As part of the rehabilitation, the exterior stucco, which had been repaired and patched as 
necessary, was painted as the owner himself stated, in a "fanciful and sportive manner." Prior to 
rehabilitation, the building had been painted beige with a few of its decorative features 
highlighted in a darker brown. After rehabilitation, the wall surfaces of this building had been 
transformed by the application of numerous colors and decorative painted and patterned surfaces 
(see illus. 3-5). Wall surfaces were painted in alternating horizontal bands of aqua, yellow and 
pink, and projecting horizontal overhangs and the raised geometric panels were boldly outlined in 
black. Most notable was the use of paint to create contemporary stylized patterning, exaggerated 
illusionistic stone textures on door surrounds and above door panels, and a "cracked-tile" pattern 
above second-story stairwells and on planters surrounding the base of the building. 

This apartment building is typical of the Moderne style, and as such is characterized by simplicity 
of materials, flat roofs, horizontal unbroken lines, use of pure colors and honesty of materials. It 
is the building's plain, monochromatic wall surfaces combined with only a few simple geometric 
decorative features that define its character. The application of these exuberant painted finishes 
during the rehabilitation distorted these features so characteristic of the style, thus confusing the 
historic stylistic identity of the building. 

Consequently, as no evidence was presented to indicate that this type of exterior decorative 
painting had ever existed on this particular building, nor indeed on any building located in the 
historic district, it was determined that the decorative painted abstract patterns and faux finishes 
applied during the rehabilitation were inconsistent with the historic character of the building, and 
the historic district. The plain, unpatterned aqua, yellow, and pink colors on the walls were not 
considered objectionable, or in violation of the Standards, although it is most unlikely that they 
would have existed historically either in such a combination, or in such intense colors. 



88-104 

In order to receive the tax credits, the owner agreed to paint over the patterned finishes on the 
walls in solid white and the planters in solid black, thereby bringing the rehabilitation into 
conformance with the Standards and making it consistent with the historic character of the 
property and the historic district. 

Prepared bv : Anne E. Grimmer, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department 
of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 
for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of 
each particular case. 




38-104 



1. The primary entrances to this early 1940s Moderne apartment building are 
located in the courtyard of the U-shaped structure. Note the overall 
plainness of the building before rehabilitation, which is highlighted 
only by horizontal banding and raised geometric panels. 




2. The street elevation of the building where patch repair work has already 
begun shows the decorative panels of local stone under the second story 
windows at either end of the building. 



s8-104f«fe 






3-5. After rehabilitation the character of the building has been greatly changed by the 
application of a variety of decorative painted finishes, in particular the "faux" stone 
surfaces around doors, the contemporary patterned design used above doors and on 
balconies, and the "cracked tile" pattern on the planters that surround the building. 




chnical Preservation Services 
jservation Assistance Division 
itional Park Service 
3. Department of the Interior 
ishmgton, DC. 



Interpreting 



the~Secretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-105 



Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 

4. Retention of Changes Which Have 

Acquired Significance (nonconformance) 

6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or 

Missing Evidence (nonconformance) 

Subject: REMOVAL OF EXTERIOR FEATURES WHICH DEFINE HISTORIC USE 

Issue: Even when it is not possible to establish the original appearance of an architectural 
feature which has been replaced during the life of a building, the very presence of the 
feature in an altered form may be important in understanding the historic function or 
historical evolution of a building. According to the Secretary's Standards, if the feature is 
deteriorated or does not comply with building codes, all attempts should be made to repair 
the feature that exists. Attempts to reconstruct such a feature without physical or 
photographic evidence may raise concerns about the appropriateness of a replacement; 
however, when the feature has served in the same location throughout the building's 
history, and is important to an understanding of the building's historic use, retention or 
suitable replacement of the existing feature should occur. Complete removal of the 
replacement feature with no effort toward retention would place the project in violation of 
Standards 2, 4 and 6. 

Application: In the conversion of an 1889 two story, balloon frame building to professional 
office space, a highly visible exterior wood staircase which had formerly accessed the 
second floor was removed (see illus 1 and 2). The building, located in a district of 
residential and small commercial structures, had served as a store on the ground floor with 
separate living quarters above. The staircase had originally allowed separate entry to the 
second floor, and thus reinforced the functional independence of the two floors. 

The existing staircase was constructed within the last fifteen years; no remnant of the 
original feature had survived to guide replication and photographic documentation was 
unavailable. In view of the Standard's cautions against reproductions which are purely 
conjectural, the owner maintained that any attempt to reconstruct a staircase would 
misrepresent the original type. Because the narrow width and deteriorated condition of the 
staircase made it undesirable to retain, the decision was made to remove the staircase 
entirely with no attempt at reconstruction. 

The project was determined not to meet the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation 
because some form of staircase had always served the second floor of the ell and it was felt 
that the staircase should have been retained or rebuilt. Furthermore, the staircase had been 
cited as a character-defining element representative of commercial vernacular architecture 
in the district. Without a staircase to access the second floor of the ell, the historic 
independence of the living quarters is no longer evidenced and the ell is represented as a 
single unit. 

The project would meet the Standards if the staircase were reinstated, thus recapturing the 
historic division between the first and second floor living quarters. 

Prepared bv: Lauren McCroskey, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique 
facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



88-105 




1. This view shows the exterior staircase in place before rehabilitation. Although this 
staircase was a replacement of the original, the feature was significant because it had 
remained in the same location and because it announced a separate use and function for 
the second floor of the ell. 




2. With the removal of the staircase there is no longer an indication of the second floor's 
independence from the first. The two floors of the ell addition appear to be functionally 
integrated. 



ical Preservation Services 
vation Assistance Division 
ial Park Service 
lepartment of the Interior 
ngton, DC. 



Interpreting 



the~Secretary of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-106 

Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 
9. Compatible Design for New Alterations/ 

Additions (nonconformance) 

ubiect: INCOMPATIBLE ROOFTOP ADDITIONS 

ssue : When rehabilitating a historic building for a new or continued use, it may be 
ecessary to expand the historic building somewhat to meet new functional requirements or 
3 make the project economically viable. New additions to historic buildings located in 
rban areas frequently take the form of rooftop additions because of higher property costs 
r limited availability of land on which to expand. While it is always preferable to choose 
he new use to fit the size of the existing historic building, the Standards allow the 
onstruction of new additions if they do not destroy significant historic or architectural 
abric, and if their design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character 
f the property and the neighborhood. Compatible rooftop additions should be subordinate 
3, and clearly differentiated from, the historic building; not all historic buildings can be 
nlarged in a manner that is consistent with the Standards, whether for reason of size, 
iting or location within a historic district. The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic 
iuildings recommend that new rooftop additions be designed so that they are 
nconspicuous from the public right-of-way, are set back from the front wall plane of the 
uilding, and do not damage character-defining features of the historic building. A 
roposed rooftop addition that violates any of these principles generally would not meet 
he Standards. 

kpplication : A small, two-story commercial building originally constructed in 1891 as a 
iw office was rehabilitated for residential use. Located on a hill in the business district 
f a small rural town, this semi-detached brownstone structure almost completely covered 
ts building lot, and its unattached side wall abutted a steep hill, with space for only a 
arrow service walkway providing access to the rear of the building (see illus. 1). Despite 
he fact that the entire two floors of the building were utilized for its conversion into a 
ingle-family residence, the owner felt that the existing space was inadequate, and 
ccordingly engaged the project architect to design a new rooftop addition. The new one- 
tory addition, approximately 10' x 16', was clad in wood and featured a large brick 
himney on the primary elevation. Although set back more than halfway from the front of 
he historic building in an attempt to minimize it, the new addition is still highly visible 
within the historic district (see illus. 2-3). This is due in part to its size which is almost 
ne-half the size of the historic building, as well as to the fact that the building itself is 
ighly visible within the town and historic district because of its location on a hillside. 



88-106 

Because the rooftop addition is too large, and its proportions too heavy for such a modest- 
sized building, the rehabilitation was denied certification. (The new awning over the front 
door was also cited as violating the Standards because its size and proportions intrude on 
the simple classicism of the facade.) While the rooftop addition is not particularly 
noticeable from many points within the historic district, it is very visible from the main 
intersection nearby. It is also extremely visible from the historic district boundary up the 
street from the building. This is the first impression one receives of the historic district 
when entering the town from this point, and it includes an important scenic view which 
encompasses much of the district as well as the river and hills beyond. 

Prepared by: Anne Grimmer, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique 
facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



88-106 







1. This small, semi-detached building was constructed 
in 1891 as a law office. A narrow walkway to the rear 
separates the building from the steep hill that abuts it 
on the right. 



88-106 




2-3. After rehabilitation, the new rooftop addition is 
highly visible within the historic district, both from below 
the building at the main intersection at the foot of the hill, 
and from above the building higher on the hillside. 




3chnical Preservation Services 
reservation Assistance Division 
ational Park Service 
S. Department of the Interior 
/ashington, DC. 



Interpreting 



the~Secretary of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-107 

Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 
3. Recognition of Historic Period (nonconformance) 
6. Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing 
Features Based on Historic Evidence 
(nonconformance) 

Subject: ADDING DETAILS WHICH MISREPRESENT A BUILDING'S HISTORIC 

APPEARANCE 

Issue: Owners are often tempted to embellish simple, unadorned facades with high style 
details, or features borrowed from a different building epoch. If architectural details are 
added to a facade it is necessary to establish that the features existed together historically 
on the facade. Undocumented and conjectural changes create a false sense of historical 
development and are contrary to the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation. 

Application: In a historic district of vernacular wood frame dwellings, the main facade of 
a small, single story, simply detailed 1900 building was elaborated with details suggesting 
the Greek Revival style (see illus I.) Triangular pediments were added to the window 
heads, and simple turned posts were replaced with square, Doric posts (see illus 2.) The 
resultant changes undermined the vernacular simplicity of the Victorian structure. 
Although buildings within the historic district built about the same time were fitted with 
Greek Revival details, they were without exception larger, more imposing structures. No 
other authentic examples of modest, similarly adorned structures could be found. However, 
even if such examples could be cited, the evidence would not prove that this building ever 
had these particular features. 

The use of unprecedented details on this small facade is also historically and visually 
improper because the proportions of the new features create awkward junctures with the 
existing cornice. For example, the capitals of the posts are improperly scaled and project 
beyond the gable soffit (see illus 3.) The building's new presentation as a Greek temple is 
also unsuccessful due to the lack of entablature and requisite Classical cornices and 
moldings that would normally be found in the overlying gable of a true Greek Revival 
building. 

It is not advisable to impose a new stylistic identity onto a facade since attempts will most 
likely confuse the historic appearance of the building. Although an exterior of any size 
may lack elaborate detailing and texture, it is important to retain the simplicity which 
defines the building, realizing that historic character may be expressed only by the few 
modest details that exist. In this example, violation of the Interior's Standards occurred 
because the added decorative features caused the removal of historic materials and because 
the building was given an appearance conflicting with its historic one. By removing the 
added features and reinstalling the original posts, the visual appearance of the porch and 
windows can be readily retrieved. 

Prepared bv: Lauren McCroskey, TPS 

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique 
facts and circumstances of each particular case. 



88-107 




1. Simple turned posts and plain windows 
were the only expressive details of 
the vernacular frame building. 




2. The dramatic shift in appearance from a vernacul 
structure to a higher style building is achieved 
with Greek Revival posts and triangular window 
pediments. The building was not originally fitted 
with these details, nor is there any occurrence of 
these features on a facade of this size within the 
district. 



88-107 




4 

i 



-si 



3. Not only have the added features created a 
non-historic appearance for the facade, but 
the size of the new capitals does not conform 
to the narrower dimensions of the overlying 
gable and causes an awkward overlap of the 
cornice. Compare with the photograph taken 
before rehabilitation which reveals the 
compatible proportions of the turned posts and 
the gable it supports. 



Technical Preservation Services 
Preservation Assistance Division 
National Park Service 
U.S. Department of the Interior 
Washington, DC. 



Interpreting 



thlTSecretarv of the Interior's 



Standards tor Rehabilitation 



Number: 88-108 

Applicable Standard: 2. Retention of Distinguishing Architectural 

Character (nonconformance) 

Subject: INAPPROPRIATE DROPPED CEILINGS 

Issue.: Dropped ceilings are often installed in historic buildings to cover up materials in 
need of repair, to reduce energy costs, and to provide an enclosure for HVAC ducts and 
lighting. However, they are generally not appropriate for historic buildings. 
Contemporary dropped ceilings can diminish the architectural character of a building in a 
number of ways. First, they often destroy or obscure architectural ornamentation 
Decorative details such as plaster cornices, ceiling medallions, and picture molds are 
frequently removed or damaged during installation of dropped ceilings, while other 
historic features such as exposed beams are simply concealed. Lowered ceilings can also 
have the effect of altering and, in many cases, radically changing room proportions. After 
a dropped ceiling is inserted, doorways, windows, and other openings can appear to "crowd 
the ceiling." Finally, since dropped ceilings are often visible from the outside, they can 
also adversely affect the exterior of the building as well as the interior. 

In some cases, however, lowered ceilings may be acceptable: where distinguishing historic 
features and details would not be lost, where altering room proportions does not change the 
building s overall historic character, and where the new ceilings do not extend so close to 
windows as to be prominent from the exterior. 

Application : The subject building is a ca. 1890 two-story brick residence located in a turn- 
of-the-century residential and commercial historic district. In converting the residence 
into three floors of offices, the owner introduced dropped ceilings in the all primary spaces 
on the first floor with the exception of the central hall. 

Originally, the house featured generous 12' unornamented plaster ceilings on the main floor 
(see lllus. 1), an important characteristic of its age and style. To conceal a new HVAC 
system dropped ceilings were installed at a height of 10'. (Typically, the HVAC would be 
installed in the basement of this building type, but the owner elected to use it for office 
space, and existing headroom was already limited.) 

The contemporary ceiling installed drastically diminishes the historic appearance of the 
primary rooms (see illus. 2). The fluorescent lighting, dark grid lines and uneven texture 
ot the acoustical tile are not consistent with the building's historic character. It assumes a 
visual prominence lacking in the original. 



88-108 

The project did not retain the architectural character and therefore failed to meet the 
Standards for Rehabilitation. In this particular case, there was no permanent damage to 
the historic materials, so the rehabilitation could potentially meet the Standards if the 
owner were to install a plasterboard ceiling more consistent with the original room 
proportions, preferably at the minimum required clearance for the HVAC system. One 
method to better integrate HVAC systems is the use of wall and ceiling chases. Failure to 
minimize the impact of the HVAC system and dropped ceiling may violate Standard 2. 



i 



Prepared by : Michael Auer and Neal A. Vogel, TPS 



These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique 
facts and circumstances of each particular case. 




1. The only primary space on the first floor left 
unaffected after rehabilitation was the central 
hall, shown here with its original ceiling height 
and column divider. 



2. This view shows the distracting metal grid an< 
ceiling illumination of the new dropped ceiling 



i 



CUMULATIVE INDEX 



Volume 
Volume 2 
Volume 3 



001-043 
044-075 
076-108 



Abrasive Cleaning 
009, 039 

Additions to Buildings 
See Also: Greenhouses 

New Construction, Adjacent 
Storefronts 
Demolition of Additions 

016, 018, 045 
New Additions 

010, 022, 026, 027, 028, 034, 037, 045, 051, 058, 072, 075, 079, 085, 091, 095, 097 
Rooftop Additions 

034, 048, 051, 060, 071, 074, 083, 106 

Administrative Issues 
See: Previous Owner 

Air Conditioning 
014 

Aluminum Siding 

See: Artificial Siding 

Arcades 
030 

Artificial Siding 
005, 006, 070 

Atrium 
048, 093 

Awnings 
079, 106 

Balconies 

See Also: Porches, Galleries 
048, 077 

Brick 

Mitigating damage of abrasively cleaned masonry 

009 
Painting previously unpainted brick 

011, 029 

Removing interior plaster to expose brick 
013 

Brownstone 

See: Sandstone 



Building Codes 

032,037,059,081 

Ceilings 

See: Interior Spaces, Alterations 

Chemical Cleaning 
063 

Cleaning, Damaging Methods 
See: Abrasive Cleaning 
Chemical Cleaning 

Codes 

See: Building Codes 

Complexes 

See: Demolition, Buildings within complexes 

Courtyards 
097 
See Also: Atrium 

Cupola 
078 

Decks 

See: Porches 

Demolition 

See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration 
Buildings within complexes 

012,041,043 
Demolition/alteration of non-original features that have achieved significance 

016,018,027,041,073 
Significant fabric and features 

032, 039, 048, 072, 076, 082, 084, 093, 100, 101, 105, 107 

Deteriorated Buildings, Features and Materials, Repair versus Replacement 

029, 031, 038, 040, 042, 043, 054, 055, 056, 064, 067, 069, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090 

Doors and Entrances 

See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration 
New 

029, 047, 049, 050, 077, 094, 097 
Removal or replacement of entrance 

004, 015, 025, 032, 045, 049, 050, 061, 067, 085, 105 

Elevator 
059 

Entrances 

See: Doors and Entrances 

Environment 
See: Setting 



Exterior Surfaces 

See: Artificial Siding 
Brick 

Paint, Removal of 
Replacement Materials 
Sandstone 
Wood 

False Fronts 

See: Surface Material, Nonhistoric 

Fireplaces 

See: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration 

Floor Plans, Changes 

019, 020, 026, 051, 054, 065, 076, 080, 081, 082, 084, 092, 093, 100, 102 

Galleries 

See Also: Porches 
New construction 
008, 078 

Gardens 

See: Setting 

Greenhouse Additions 
007,022,045,091 

Historically Inappropriate Alterations and Additions, Construction of 
See Also: Brick, Removing interior plaster to expose brick 
004, 005, 008, 018, 024, 029, 078, 085, 107 

Insulation, Urea-formaldehyde Foam 
023 

Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration 
See Also: Floor Plans, Changes 

017, 019, 020, 024, 047, 054, 059, 065, 066, 076, 080, 081, 082, 084, 093, 099, 100, 101, 102, 
108 

Light Shaft 
081 

Limestone, Replacement 
055 

Moved Building 
098 

New Construction, Adjacent 

See Also: Additions to Buildings 
Greenhouses 

Historically Inappropriate Alterations 
Infill Construction 
Porches 

Roof Alterations 
Setting 
Storefronts 



002, 095, 103 

Paint 

See Also: Abrasive Cleaning 
Inappropriate Decorative Schemes 

104 
Mitigating damage to exterior by painting 

009, 042 
Painting previously unpainted surfaces 

011,029 
Retention of unpainted surfaces after paint removal 

036, 039 

Pedestrian Bridges 
075 

Plan, Changes to 

See: Floor Plans, Changes 

Plaster, Removal of 

See Also: Interior Spaces and Features, Alteration 
013 

Porches 

See Also: Galleries 

Addition of decks and porches 

094, 096 
Alteration/Demolition 

006, 018, 033, 039, 044, 054, 072, 073, 078, 085, 107 
Enclosures 

001,033 

Previous Owner, Project Work Undertaken by Previous Owner 
001, 102 

Rear Elevations 

See: Secondary and Rear Elevations 

Regulations, Project Work Undertaken Prior to Issuance of 
018,028 

Replacement Materials 
See: Artifical Siding 
Brownstone 
Doors 
Limestone 
Roofing 

Sandstone, Replacement of 
Windows 
Wood 

Reversibility 
079 

Roof Alterations 

See Also: Additions, Rooftop 
031,038,051,078,079 



Sandblasting 

Sec: Abrasive Cleaning 

Sandstone, Replacement 
040, 056 

Secondary and Rear Elevations, Changes to 
033, 049, 050, 072, 085, 091, 094 

Selective Restoration 
078, 096, 099 

Setting 

002, 068, 095, 097, 098, 103 

Siding 

See: Artificial Siding 

Wood, Replacing clapboarding with shingles 

Site 

See: Setting 

Skywalks 

See: Pedestrian Bridges 

Stairs and Stairtowers, Exterior 
037,083,097, 105 

Standards for Evaluating Significance Within Registered Historic Districts 
064, 070 

Standards for Rehabilitation, Secretary of the Interior's 

Standard 1 (Compatible New Use) 
020, 028, 033, 047, 053, 065, 066, 077 

Standard 2 (Retention of Distinguishing Architectural Character) 

001, 002, 003, 006, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 017, 019, 020, 021, 022, 023, 025, 026, 028, 
029, 030, 032, 033, 036, 039, 041, 043, 044, 045, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 
055, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060, 061, 062, 065, 066, 069, 071, 073, 074, 075, 076, 077, 079, 
080, 081, 082, 083, 084, 089, 090, 092, 094, 095, 097, 098, 099, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 
105, 106, 107, 108 

Standard 3 (Recognition of Historic Period) 

004, 005, 006, 008, 010, 024, 029, 046, 054, 055, 056, 061, 085, 096, 107 

Standard 4 (Retention of Significant Later Alterations/Additions) 

012, 016, 018, 025, 027, 031, 041, 043, 053, 054, 061, 062, 073, 078, 096, 105 
Standard 5 (Sensitive Treatment of Distinctive Features and Craftsmanship) 

011, 014, 017, 020, 025, 029, 032, 033, 047, 048, 053, 054, 058, 059, 062, 065, 073, 080, 
082, 084, 089, 090, 093, 100, 101, 104 
Standard 6 (Repair/Replacement of Deteriorated or Missing Architectural 
Features Based on Historic Evidence) 

013, 015, 029, 031, 032, 035, 038, 040, 042, 046, 049, 052, 054, 055, 056, 057, 059, 061, 
065, 067, 069, 072, 073, 078, 082, 084, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 096, 099, 102, 105, 107 

Standard 7 (Cleaning with Gentlest Method Possible) 

009, 039, 063 
Standard 8 (Protection/Preservation of Archeological Resources) 
Standard 9 (Compatible Contemporary Design for New Alterations/Additions) 

001, 003, 007, 010, 014, 022, 028, 030, 031, 034, 037, 045, 046, 048, 049, 050, 051, 058, 
060, 065, 066, 067, 071, 072, 074, 075, 079, 080, 083, 085, 091, 092, 095, 097, 103, 106 



Standard 10 (Reversibility of New Alterations/Additions) 
026, 037, 047, 048, 051, 066, 079, 080 

Storefronts 

003, 004, 027, 030, 049, 050, 053, 061, 062, 067, 070, 073 

Streetscape 

075, 097, 098 

Stucco 
040 

Surface Material, Nonhistoric 
005, 070 

Timing 

See: Project Work Undertaken Prior to Issuance of Regulations 

Vinyl Siding 

See: Artificial Siding 

Windows 

See Also: Storefronts 
Alteration/Demolition 

015, 031, 032, 046, 048, 075, 107 
New openings 

050, 077, 094 
Replacement 

021, 029, 035, 046, 052, 057, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090 

Wood 

Abrasive cleaning 

^19 
Removing interior woodwork 

017 
Removing paint from previously painted wood 

036, 039 
Replacing clapboarding with shingles 

042 




HJ 





DATE DUE 




1*f£' 


htm^J 


^^? W4!J{rI 






/5-/7- 1 


to 


















"&-af *7 


W.v,/ 


NjgiPgiHWlvn* 


wv*pC» r 


*KtAjr\f 


•juiv "r 


"vJ»»J *4k 


















for 


)UE DATE INF 


DRMATION, 




CHE( 


IK "MYACCOU 


NT IN GIL 






( '»f'/W| ijnp 

\ "1 "'v. —^ • 


edu) 





















































DEMCO 38-297